.r.. · 23. Michigan 2008: Challenger Assailed as Soft on Terrorism Page 35 24. TV Spending, 2007...

J,

J;uness.mpkHo"'," Un""'''itr Sch.oo1 rlo",

Adom ~undJI1I ...bo BG...,.Banrum Cat"", lOr Jum:z,~t NYU School nfUw

lind>. Co,",>,NotllJluJ In,titu..

a....... HaU. Ed'to.Jlallia: at S",I", umpoitln .r .. tl",.. i>( tilt..

II) p !II I J D.

,

R NANCENTE RrORIUSrlCr

.,

,

•

About the Brennan Center For Justice

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a nonpartisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. The Center’s work includes voting rights, campaign finance reform, racial justice in criminal law and presidential power in the fight against terrorism. Part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group,

the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communications to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector.

For more information, visit www.brennancenter.org.

About the National Institute on Money in State Politics

The National Institute on Money in State Politics collects, publishes, and analyzes data on campaign money in state elections. The database dates back to the 1990 election cycle for some states and is comprehensive for all 50 states since the 1999–2000 election cycle. The Institute has compiled a 50-state summary of

state supreme court contribution data from 1989 through the present, as well as complete, detailed databases of campaign contributions for all state high-court judicial races beginning with the 2000 elections.

For more information, visit www.followthemoney.org.

About the Justice at Stake Campaign

The Justice at Stake Campaign is a nonpartisan national partnership working to keep our courts fair, impartial and free from special-interest and partisan agendas. In states across America, Campaign partners work to protect our courts through public education, grass-roots organizing and reform. The

Campaign provides strategic coordination and brings organizational, communications and research resources to the work of its partners and allies at the national, state and local levels.

For more information, visit www.justiceatstake.org.

This report was prepared by the Justice at Stake Campaign and two of its partners, the Brennan Center for Justice and

the National Institute on Money in State Politics. It represents their research and viewpoints, and does not necessarily

reflect those of other Justice at Stake Campaign partners, funders or board members. Publication of this report was

supported by grants from Carnegie Corporation of New York, Democracy Alliance Partners, the Joyce Foundation, the

Moriah Fund, the Open Society Institute, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Wallace Global Fund.

The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2000–2009: Decade of Change Published August 2010

BRENNANCENTERFOR JUSTICE

,iltpumt ~Cltrt d f4t 1ltttifth jtattS'

llIht.5lfittgbttt. Jl. <!f. 2lTP:Jl.~

CHAMBERS Of

JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR (RET.)

August 2010

Dear Reader:

I am pleased to introduce The New Politics ofJudicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade ofChange. This report, the latest in a series begun in 2000, provides a comprehensive review ofthe threat posed by money and special interest pressure on fair and impartial courts.

We all expect judges to be accountable to the law rather than political supporters or specialinterests. But elected judges in many states are compelled to solicit money for their electioncampaigns, sometimes from lawyers and patties appearing before them. Whether or not thesecontributions actually tilt the scales ofjustice, three out of every four Americans believe thatcampaign contributions affect cOUltroom decisions.

This crisis of confidence in the impaliiality of the judiciary is real and growing. Leftunaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courtsare supposed to uphold.

To avoid this outcome, states should look to reforms that take political pressure out of thejudicial selection process. In recent years, I have advocated the system used in my home stateof Arizona, where a bipartisan nominating committee recommends a pool of qualifiedcandidates from which the governor appoints judges to fill vacancies. Voters then hold judgesaccountable in retention elections. Other promising state initiatives have included publicfinancing ofjudicial elections, campaign disclosure laws, and recusal reforms.

We all have a stake in ensuring that courts remain fair, impartial, and independent. If we fail toremember this, partisan infighting and hardball politics will erode the essential function of ourjudicial system as a safe place where every citizen stands equal before the law.

For 10 years, the New Politics reports have played a leading role in documenting the growingthreat to the credibility of our courts. I applaud the authors-Justice at Stake, the BrennanCenter for Justice, the National Institute on Money in State Politics, and the Hofstra LawSchool-for working to protect the courts that safeguard our rights.

Sincerely,

Sandra Day O'Connor

717 D Street, NW, Suite 203 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone (202) 588-9700 • Fax (202) 588-9485 [email protected] www.justiceatstake.org

The Justice at Stake Campaign is a nonpartisan national partnership working to keep our courts fair and impartial. Across America, Campaign partners help protect our courts through public education, grass-roots organizing, coalition building and reform. The Campaign provides strategic coordination and brings unique organizational, communications and research resources to the work of its partners and allies at the national, state and local levels.

Visit us at www.justiceatstake.org


THE

NEW POLITICS OFJUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2000-2009

byJames SampleHofstra University School of Law

Adam Skaggs and Jonathan BlitzerBrennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Linda CaseyNational Institute on Money in State Politics

Charles Hall, EditorJustice at Stake Campaign

DECADE OFCHANGE

iv Table of Contents

Table of ContentsList of Charts and Figures page vi

Executive Summary page 1

Chapter 1 The Money Explosion Page 5Rise of the Super Spenders Page 9

The Threat to Justice Page 9

How We Got Here Page 14

Rise of the Super Spenders: Alabama Page 15

Super Spenders in Other States Page 16

Triumph of the Super Spenders: Illinois Page 16

Money: Focus on 2007-08 Page 17

Other States of Note in 2007-08 Page 21

2009 High Court Elections: Costly Trends Continue Page 21

Chapter Notes Page 23

Chapter 2 Court TV: The Rise of Costly Attack Ads Page 24Introduction: After the Flood Page 24

Independent Ads Lead the Attack Page 25

Party Ads Crucial in ’08 Page 28

State in Focus: Michigan Page 30

TV: Focus on 2008 Page 31

State in Focus: Wisconsin Page 32

2007: TV Spending in an Off Year Page 36


Chapter 3 Who Played? Who Won? Page 38Nationalizing of Court Elections Page 39

The Left: Organizing at the State Level Page 41

The National Networks Page 42

American Justice Partnership Page 42

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Network Page 43

American Tort Reform Association Page 44

The Secret Money Players Page 44

Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee Page 44

State-Level Coalitions Page 45

Texas Titans: Bob Perry and Fred Baron Page 45

Focus on Alabama: Shell Game on the Left Page 46

The New Politics of Judicial Elections: 2000–2009 v

Michigan/Wisconsin: What’s Behind the Curtain? Page 48

Georgia: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow Page 49

The Battle for America’s Courts Page 50

Quotes From the Decade Page 52


Chapter 4 Litigation: The Battle Inside the Courtroom Page 55 Caperton v. Massey: When Judges Must Step Aside Page 55

Who Decides What Is Fair and Impartial? Page 56

An Earlier Case of Election Bias? Page 57

The Caperton Coalition: Diverse Groups Rally to Defend Impartial Justice Page 58

Judicial Speech: How Far Can Candidates Go? Page 61

Campaign Finance Returns to the High Court Page 62

Balancing Two Constitutional Rights: Free Speech and Fair Trials Page 64


Chapter 5 Public Takes Note, Decision-Makers Begin to Follow Page 67 Recent Reform Efforts Page 67

The Broader Reform Menu Page 69

The Rise and Fall of Judicial Tampering by Ballot Measures 1

The Media Take Note Page 72

Judicial Appointments: The Emerging Battlefront Page 73

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Merit Selection Page 74

The Voters Weigh In Page 74

Debate in the Business Sector Page 75

Hanging a ‘For Sale’ Sign Over the Judiciary Page 76


AppendicesAppendix 1: State Profiles, 2000–2009 Page 78

Appendix 2: Supreme Court TV Advertisements 2008 Page 86

Appendix 3: Facts About State Court Election and Appointment Systems Page 99

Appendix 4: About the Authors Page 100

Photo Sources Page 102

Index Page 104

vi List of Figures

List of Charts and FiguresChapter 1 The Money Explosion

State Supreme Court Fundraising by Biennium Page 51.

Total Supreme Court Fundraising Ranked by State, 2000–2009 Page 62.

Contributions by Sector, 2000–2009 High Court Elections 3.

Super Spenders and What They Spent Page 104.

Total Spending for Top 10 States, 2000–2009 High Court Elections Page 125.

Top U.S. Super Spenders, 2000–2009 High Court Elections Page 136.

Supreme Court Fundraising: Partisan, Nonpartisan and Retention Elections Page 147.

Total Supreme Court Spending: Top 10 States, 2007–08 Page 178.

Top 10 Supreme Court Super Spenders, 2007–08 Page 189.

Contributions by Sector, 2007–08 Page 1910.

Supreme Court Fundraising by Candidates on Ballot, 2007–08 Page 2011.

Chapter 2 Court TV: The Rise of Costly Attack Ads

Number of TV Ad Airings by Year, 2000–2009 High Court Elections Page 2512.

Total Spending on TV Ads, 2000–09 Page 2613.

Ohio 2000 Ad: Is Justice for Sale? Page 2614.

High Court Election TV Spending, 2000–2009 Page 2715.

Top 12 TV Ad Spenders, 2000–2009 High Court Elections Page 2816.

Greater Wisconsin Committee, TV Ad from 2008 Page 2917.

TV Spending, 2008 High Court Elections Page 2918.

The Sleeping Judge: Democratic Ad Slams Michigan Chief Justice Page 3019.

Sponsors and Tone, 2008 High Court Election Ads Page 3120.

2008 Anti-Butler Ad Triggered Questions on Truth, Race Page 3321.

Alabama 2008: Ad Ties Candidate to Special Interests Page 3422.

Michigan 2008: Challenger Assailed as Soft on Terrorism Page 3523.

TV Spending, 2007 High Court Elections Page 3624.

TV Spending in Off-Year High Court Elections, 25. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Page 36

The New Politics of Judicial Elections: 2000–2009 vii

Chapter 3 Who Played? Who Won?

Washington 2006: National Groups Finance Attack Ads in State Race Page 3826.

Top Supreme Court Spenders, 2000–09 and 2007–08 Page 4027.

PACs Used by 28. Beasley Allen to Mask High Court Donations Page 47

Map: The Battle for America’s Courts Page 5029.

Chapter 4 The Battle Inside the Courtroom

New York Times30. Caperton Headline Page 55

Chronology of 31. Avery v. State Farm Controversy Page 57

Washington Post32. Citizens United Headline Page 63

Chapter 5 Public Takes Note, Decision-Makers Begin to Follow

What the Public and Business Leaders Think Page 6833.

South Dakota Amendment E Ad Page 7134.

Ad for Greene County Nonpartisan Court Plan Page 7335.

Ad against Greene County Nonpartisan Court Plan Page 7336.

State judicial elections have been transformed during the past decade. The story of America’s 2000–2009 high court contests—tens of millions of dollars raised by candidates from parties who may appear before them, millions more poured in by interest groups, nasty and misleading ads, and pressure on judges to signal courtroom rulings on the campaign trail—has become the new normal. For more than a decade, partisans and special interests of all stripes have been growing more organized in their efforts to use elections to tilt the scales of justice their way. Many Americans have come to fear that justice is for sale.

Unlike previous editions, which covered only the most recent election cycle, this fifth edition of the “New Politics of Judicial Elections” looks at the 2000–2009 decade as a whole. By tallying the num-bers and “connecting the dots” among key players over the last five election cycles, this report offers a broad portrait of a grave and growing challenge to the impartiality of our nation’s courts. These trends include:

The explosion in judicial campaign spending, much of it poured in by “super ➜

spender” organizations seeking to sway the courts;

The parallel surge of nasty and costly TV ads as a prerequisite to gaining a state ➜

Supreme Court seat;

The emergence of secretive state and national campaigns to tilt state Supreme ➜

Court elections;

Litigation about judicial campaigns, some of which could boost special-interest ➜

pressure on judges;

Growing public concern about the threat to fair and impartial justice—and sup- ➜

port for meaningful reforms.

The Money Explosion

The surge in spending is pronounced and systemic. Campaign fundraising more than doubled, from $83.3 million in 1990–1999 to $206.9 million in 2000–2009. Three of the last five Supreme Court election cycles topped $45 million. All but two of the 22 states with con-testable Supreme Court elections had their costliest-ever contests in the 2000–2009 decade.

Special-interest “super spenders” played a central role in this surge. A study of 29 elections in the nation’s 10 most costly election states shows the extraordinary power of super spender groups. The top five spenders in each of these elections invested an average of $473,000, while the remaining 116,000 contributors averaged $850 each. In the most widely publicized case, one coal executive spent $3 mil-

The New Politics of Judicial Elections: 2000–2009

Executive Summary

Fundraising by Supreme Court Candidates, 2000–09:

$206.9 Million

See chart on super spenders, page 10.

2 Executive Summary

lion to elect a West Virginia justice. The disparity suggests that a small number of special interests dominated judicial election spending even before the Citizens United case ended bans on election spending by corporations and unions.

In 2007–08, five states felt the worst blast of the super spender phenomenon. When TV spend-ing by political parties and special-interest groups is factored in, Pennsylvania broke the $10 million barrier, while spending reached $8.5 million in Wisconsin. Texas and Alabama each topped $5 million, and Michigan, which had just under $5 million in fundraising and independent TV ads, witnessed some of the cycle’s most brutal campaign commercials.

Partisan races drew the most cash, but that may be changing. Candidates in partisan Supreme Court elections raised $153.8 million nationally in 2000–09, compared with $50.9 million in nonparti-san elections (retention election candidates raised $2.2 million). But in some states, notably Wisconsin in 2007–08 and Georgia in 2006, nonpartisan races have been just as costly and nasty as their partisan counterparts.

Special-interest money sometimes comes with a cost. National business groups, often working with state affiliates, were the decade’s most powerful force. But three well-funded incumbent chief justices were ousted in 2008, in part because they were tied to special-interest patrons.

The trends continued in 2009. In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Louisiana, candidates and indepen-dent groups spent a total of about $8.7 million on 2009 elections. And in each race, candidates accused opponents of being ethically tainted.

Court TV: The Rise of Costly Attack Ads

Spending on TV ads has helped fuel the money chase. From 2000 to 2009, an estimated $93.6 million was spent on air time for high court candidate TV ads. That total includes TV spending in odd-numbered election years, which for the first time is included in the New Politics data.

New records were set in 2007 and 2008. Including costly 2007 elections in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the 2007–08 cycle was, at $26.6 million, the most expensive biennium ever for TV ad spending on Supreme Court races. Eight states set all-time records for spending on TV ads during the two-year period, and there were more ad airings than ever before in 2008.

Average spending on TV continues to surge. Continuing a trend seen in 2004 and 2006, in states where TV advertisements ran, an average of more than $1 million was spent on campaign ads. In 2008, in the 13 states where Supreme Court ads aired, the average was $1.5 million.

Outside groups played a critical role in the TV wars. Special-interest groups and party organiza-tions accounted for $39.3 million, more than 40 percent of the estimated TV air time purchases in

2000–09. In 2008, special-interest groups and political parties accounted for 52 percent of all TV spending nationally—the first time that noncandidate groups outspent the candidates on the ballot.

Special-interest group ads are often harsher than candidate ads. Independent groups remain the “attack dogs” of judicial TV ads. But in 2008, Wisconsin Judge Michael Gableman’s spot attacking Justice Louis Butler provoked lingering ethics and legal challenges.See more of this ad on page 35.

The New Politics of Judicial Elections: 2000–2009 3

Who Played? Who Won?

Tort wars have become court wars. Judicial elections have become a multi-million-dollar duel, pitting business and conservative groups against plaintiffs’ lawyers and unions. High court justices know that their decisions could trigger support or retaliation in the next election.

The two sides bring starkly different profiles. The right has brought together big-name groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, leaders of corporate giants such as Home Depot and AIG Insurance, and political actors like Karl Rove. Bankrollers on the left tend to be wealthy plaintiffs’ lawyers, who often use state party organizations to hide the extent of their financial backing of a candidate.

Secret money dominates; players can give big sums with little publicity. In Alabama, the Montgomery law firm of Beasley Allen gave more than $600,000 to Judge Deborah Bell Paseur’s unsuccessful Supreme Court campaign, without ever appearing on her contribution records. This approach has been emulated in other states, including Texas.

Litigation: The Battle Inside the Courtroom

Federal courts have been increasingly pulled into state judicial election controversies, especially in the areas of campaign finance, candidate speech and recusal (when a judge avoids a case with potential ethical conflicts). Many of these cases are designed to strengthen or challenge rules that would insulate judges from special-interest pressure.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared that campaign spending could disqualify a judge from cases involving major supporters. The landmark Caperton v. Massey decision creates an incentive for every state to craft meaningful rules for when judges must step aside.

Campaign finance laws face growing litigation challenges. North Carolina’s judicial public financing law was upheld by the federal courts. But a more recent Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overturned longstanding bans on election spending from corporate and union treasuries—posing a special threat in judicial elections.

A 2002 Supreme Court decision, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, loosened restrictions on judicial campaign speech. Interest groups are using questionnaires to pressure judges into signal-ing courtroom decisions on the campaign trail. Professional norms are becoming more important in helping judicial candidates steer clear of special-interest pressures and political agendas.

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?LAWYERS

UNIONS

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION

MEDICAL INDUSTRY

National Association of Manufacturers

U.S. Chamber of Commerce/State Affiliates

Center for Individual Freedom

Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee

IMPAC Fund

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce

Greater Wisconsin Committee

Howard Rich

Michigan Democrats

Texas DemocratsAmericans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse

Business Council of Alabama

Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee

Safety & Prosperity Coalition

American Tort Reform Association

Law Enforcement Alliance of America

Alabama Democrats/Lawyers

Illinois Civil Justice League

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association

Pennsylvania Republican Committee

American Justice Partnership

American Taxpayers AllianceAnd for the Sake of the Kids

Illinois Republicans/Chamber of Commerce

Illinois Democrats/Lawyers

See the battle for America’s courts unfold on page 50.

Campaign finance returns to the high court on page 62.

4 Executive Summary

The Public Takes Note, Decision-Makers Play Catch-Up

The new politics of judicial elections has made the public fear that justice is for sale. More than seven in ten Americans believe that campaign contributions affect the outcome of courtroom decisions. Nearly half of state judges agree. Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor says, “In too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution.”

Reform efforts are making progress. After years of slow progress, reform gained steam in 2009. Wisconsin enacted public financing for court races, joining North Carolina and New Mexico, and in March 2010, West Virginia’s leg-islature also enacted a pilot public financing pro-gram. In Michigan, the Supreme Court adopted

tough new recusal rules. Polls show continued strong public support for reform measures—such as public financing of judicial races, election voter guides, recusal reform and full financial disclosure for election ads.

Merit selection has gained momentum—and more organized opposition. In a pair of 2008 county-level ballot measures, voters in Kansas and Missouri opted for appointment systems over competitive elections for judges, while Nevada lawmakers put a merit selection measure on the 2010 ballot. Meanwhile, a cadre of groups has organized to challenge merit selection systems in several states. And in a significant revisiting of its position, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited one model of merit selection as fair and compatible with business interests.

“The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today.”

— Theodore B. Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General and attorney in Caperton v. Massey case

Voters weigh in on page 74.

Chapter 1

The Money Explosion

In just a decade, in high court contests across America, cash has become king. Would-be justices must raise millions from individuals and groups with business before the courts. Millions more are spent by political parties and spe-cial-interest groups, much of it undisclosed. The money explosion is not just a threat to impartial courts. It has left a sour taste for a majority of

Americans, who believe that campaign cash is tilting the scales of justice.

Although warning signs were gathering in the 1990s, the new politics of judicial elections burst on the scene with the 1999–2000 election cycle, when Supreme Court candidates raised $45.9 million–a 62% increase over 1998.1 Since 2000,

0 $10 Million $20 Million $30 Million $40 Million $50 Million

2009

2007-2008

2005-2006

2003-2004

2001-2002

1999-2000

1997-1998

1995-1996

1993-1994

1991-1992

1989-1990

Amou

nt

$5,935,367

$9,502,350

$20,728,646

$21,378,007

$27,359,316

$45,997,238

$29,738,006

$33,238,379

$45,650,435

$7,490,080*

$46,108,547

89–90

91–92

93–94

95–96

97–98

99–00

01–02

05–06

07–08

2009

03–04

State Supreme Court Fundraising by Biennium

Figure 1. Non-contribution income to candidates is excluded from fundraising analyses in this report. Not counted are interest income, public funding, repayment of loans received in previous cycles, and miscellaneous receipts such as refunds and reimbursements. *One year only; 2010 data not available. In addition, Wisconsin Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson raised $822,104 in 2008 that she spent on her 2009 reelection campaign. Thus, total fundraising by 2009 candidates, including Abrahamson’s 2008 money, was just more than $8.3 million.

* Chapter 1 notes begin on page 23.

6 The Money Explosion

0 $10 Million $20 Million $30 Million $40 Million $50,000,000

South Dakota

Florida

North Dakota

Alaska

California

New Mexico*

Idaho

Minnesota

Arkansas**

Oregon

Montana*

Kentucky

Georgia

North Carolina**

Washington

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Louisiana

Nevada

Mississippi

Michigan

Texas

Illinois*

Ohio

Pennsylvania*

Alabama

Type of ElectionPartisanPartisan/RetentionNonpartisanNonpartisan/RetentionRetention

45 Candidates Raised$40,964,59026 Candidates Raised

$21,319,171

34 Candidates Raised$21,212,389













19 Candidates Raised $2,535,566

19 Candidates Raised $1,932,946 20 Candidates Raised $939,122


10 Candidates Raised $627,211

1 Candidate Raised $225,298 6 Candidates Raised $614,589

1 Candidate Raised $70,700 in Retention Elections 2 Candidates Raised $13,925 in Nonpartisan Elections 3 Candidates Raised $7,500 in Retention Elections 1 Candidate Raised $15 in Retention Elections

Totals:

537Candidates Raised

$206,941,244***

****Total Supreme Court Fundraising Ranked by State, 2000–2009

Figure 2.*Four states—Illinois, Montana, New Mexico and Pennsylvania—have hybrid systems that use more than one pro-cess to select and retain high court judges. In addition, the American Judicature Society lists Michigan and Ohio as partisan election states, because candidates are nominated through party primaries and conventions. For full details, see the AJS Judicial Selection in the States section, www.ajs.org.


0 $10 Million $20 Million $30 Million $40 Million $50,000,000

South Dakota

Florida

North Dakota

Alaska

California

New Mexico*

Idaho

Minnesota

Arkansas**

Oregon

Montana*

Kentucky

Georgia

North Carolina**

Washington

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Louisiana

Nevada

Mississippi

Michigan

Texas

Illinois*

Ohio

Pennsylvania*

Alabama

Type of ElectionPartisanPartisan/RetentionNonpartisanNonpartisan/RetentionRetention

45 Candidates Raised$40,964,59026 Candidates Raised

$21,319,171















19 Candidates Raised $1,932,946 20 Candidates Raised $939,122


10 Candidates Raised $627,211

1 Candidate Raised $225,298 6 Candidates Raised $614,589

1 Candidate Raised $70,700 in Retention Elections 2 Candidates Raised $13,925 in Nonpartisan Elections 3 Candidates Raised $7,500 in Retention Elections 1 Candidate Raised $15 in Retention Elections

Totals:

537Candidates Raised

$206,941,244***

****

** Arkansas and North Carolina held partisan elections for high court through 2000. Both switched to nonparti-san elections in 2002. ***Reflects the number of names appearing on the ballot for voters to choose among. For instance, where the same candidate has appeared on the ballot in three separate elections, he or she is listed as three candidates.**** Includes money raised by candidates for elections in future years, as well as candidates who withdrew before an election was held.


expensive campaigns have become all but essen-tial for a candidate to reach the high court.

From 2000–09, Supreme Court candidates raised $206.9 million nationally, more than dou-ble the $83.3 million raised from 1990–1999 (by comparison, the consumer price index rose only 25 percent from 2000–2009). During the earlier decade, 26 Supreme Court campaigns raised $1 million or more, and all but two came from three states: Alabama, Pennsylvania and Texas. In 2000–09, by contrast, there were 66 “million-dollar” campaigns, in a dozen states. During the same 2000–2009 period, 20 of the 22 states that elect Supreme Court judges set spending records; only Texas and North Dakota had their highest-spending elections in the 1990s.

In other words, the most remarkable thing about the 2007–08 cycle—in which state Supreme Court candidates raised $45.6 million2, seven

times the 1989–90 total—was that such totals have become so unremarkable. It was the third time in the last five cycles that high court candidates raised more than $45 million ($46.8 million was raised in the high-water 2003–2004 election cycle).3

Bulging campaign war chests are only part of the story. Millions more dollars have flowed into judicial elections from political parties and special-interest groups, frequently in ways crafted to avoid financial disclosure even as they seek to sway judicial contests. From 2000–09, independent groups and political parties spent at least $39.3 million on television time, about 42 percent of total ad costs.4 (The real totals are likely substantially higher. For details, see Chapter 2, Court TV: The Rise of Costly Attack Ads.)

Business$62,589,165

Candidate Contributions$17,177,609

Lawyers/Lobbyists$59,272,198

Organized Labor$6,704,944

Unknown/Unitemized$28,285,736

Other*$6,473,384

Political Party$22,168,234

Ideology/Single issue$4,269,974

Total Contributions: $206,941,244

Contributions by Sector, 2000–2009 High Court Elections

“In a close race, the judge who solicits the most money from lawyers and their clients has the upper hand. But then the day of reckoning comes. When you appear before a court, you ask how much your lawyer gave to the judge’s campaign. If the opposing counsel gave more, you are cynical.”

—Wallace Jefferson, Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court

Figure 3.* Other includes: Retired persons, civil servants, local or municipal elected officials, tribal gov-ernments, clergy, nonprofits, and mili-tary persons.


Rise of the Super Spenders The Citizens United decision, which struck down bans on corporate election spending, has sparked debate on whether unlimited special-interest money will fundamentally change the election process. A close look at state judicial elections in 2000–09 suggests such a transformation has already begun.

Much of the cash boom in the last decade was fueled by a new class of super spenders. These special interests, including business executives, unions and lawyers who are stakeholders in litigation, can dominate contributions to can-didates, year after year, and/or go outside the system by spending millions on independent TV ad campaigns.5

For big money interests, high court seats are just one more investment. As an Ohio AFL-CIO official put it, “We figured out a long time ago that it’s easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.”6 When those big-dollar support-ers appear before the very judges whom they helped elect, many Americans conclude that justice is not impartial.

A review of 10 states with the highest judicial campaign costs shows two separate worlds—a small coterie of organized super spenders who dominate election financing, and a large number of small contributors who simply cannot keep up. (See chart, pages 10 and 11.) Of equal con-cern, a large number of justices in those states owe their elections to a few key benefactors.

The yawning gap is best shown by 29 con-tested elections held from 2000–09 in Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Michigan, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Nevada, and West Virginia. In these elections, at least one candi-date benefited from $1 million or more in other people’s money—either in direct contributions or through independent election spending by other groups that benefited their campaigns.

When all 29 elections are taken together, the top five super spenders from each election—145 in all—spent an average of $473,000 apiece. By contrast, the remaining donors averaged $850. Excluding self-financing candidates, the 145 super spenders accounted for just over 40 percent of all campaign cash in the 29 elections.

Moreover, the disparity was widespread, not just the result of a few outlier contests. In 22 of 29 elections, the top five spenders averaged more than $200,000 apiece—and in 12 elections, they exceeded $500,000. In 21 of 29 elections, a mere five spenders accounted for at least 25 percent of all campaign funding. In nine elections, five super spenders accounted for more than 50 percent, exceeding thousands of contributors combined.

In a potential harbinger of the post-Citizens United world, almost all super spenders in the 29 elections were organizations, some with documented backing from corporations, unions or plaintiffs’ lawyers. Of 55 top five spenders that exceeded $100,000 one or more times, only one was an individual: Don Blankenship, whose $3 million expenditure on the 2004 West Virginia election led to the landmark Caperton v. Massey case.

But even that case raised a question: If the Citizens United ruling had been issued before 2004, allowing Blankenship to dip into the treasury of Massey Energy Co. instead of his own personal funds, how much more might he have spent?

The Threat to Justice

As expensive as these races have become, their real cost to the justice system is more pro-found. Americans believe that justice is for sale. Numerous polls show that three in four Americans believe campaign cash affects court-room decisions.

Indeed, judges themselves—who take an oath to treat parties impartially—are delivering their own warnings. In a 2009 brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Conference of Chief Justices, which represents 57 chief justices from every state and U.S. territory, wrote: “As judicial

More [email protected]


0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000

AverageSuper Spender

Average Non-SuperSpender Donor

(excluding self-financing

candidates)

All Other Donors

Super Spenders

Self-Financed

$473,679

$850

Total of 145 expenditures by Super Spenders in 29 elections, 2000-09: $68,683,472

Self-financing by candidates $6,644,247

Total spent by 116,600 other donors:$99,187,112

Total Spending in 29 Supreme Court Elections, 2000–09:

$174,514,881 Super Spenders, Versus Other Donors: 29 High Court Elections, 2000–2009

Super Spenders and What They Spent


U.S. Chamber and Ohio Affiliates

Don Blankenshipcoal industry executive

Illinois Democratic Partywith plaintiffs' lawyer backing

Alabama Democratic Partywith plaintiffs' lawyer backing

Illinois Republican Party/U.S. Chamber of Commerce

ad blitz underwritten by business group

$4.4 Million, Ohio 2000

$3 Million, West Virginia 2004

$2.8 Million, Illinois 2004


$2.4 Million, Alabama 2000

Greatest Expenditures by One Source on a Single Court Election, 2000–2009


0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000

AverageSuper Spender

Average Non-SuperSpender Donor

(excluding self-financing

candidates)

All Other Donors

Super Spenders

Self-Financed

$473,679

$850

Total of 145 expenditures by Super Spenders in 29 elections, 2000-09: $68,683,472

Self-financing by candidates $6,644,247

Total spent by 116,600 other donors:$99,187,112

Total Spending in 29 Supreme Court Elections, 2000–09:

$174,514,881


U.S. Chamber and Ohio Affiliates

Don Blankenshipcoal industry executive

Illinois Democratic Partywith plaintiffs' lawyer backing

Alabama Democratic Partywith plaintiffs' lawyer backing

Illinois Republican Party/U.S. Chamber of Commerce

ad blitz underwritten by business group

$4.4 Million, Ohio 2000

$3 Million, West Virginia 2004



$2.4 Million, Alabama 2000

Figure 4. This chart shows estimated total spending in 29 contested Supreme Court elections from 2000 to 2009—including contributions, self-financing by candidates and independent spending by groups not affiliated with candidates. All contested elections were selected in 10 high-spending states in which at least one candidate was aided by $1 million or more from others, either in the form of contributions or inde-pendent expenditures. The states are Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

With three exceptions, all data are compiled from two sources. Campaign contribution data are from the National Institute on Money in State Politics, www.followthemoney.org, and independent TV spending data are provided by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG. In three elections, more detailed records were available, and those sources are used. A lawsuit against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after the Ohio 2000 election disclosed $4.4 million in spending. In papers filed with the state of West Virginia, Don Blankenship disclosed spending $3 million on that state’s 2004 Supreme Court election. State finance records for the Improve Mississippi PAC in 2008 also were used.


election campaigns become costlier and more politicized, public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the nation’s elected judges may be imperiled.”7

In a 2001 poll of state judges, almost half—46 percent—agreed that campaign donations influence judicial decisions.8 Most elected high court justices cited pressure to raise campaign money during their election years. In 2006 Ohio Supreme Court justice Paul Pfeifer told the New York Times, “I never felt so much like a hooker down by the bus station. . . as I did in a judicial race. Everyone interested in contributing has very specific interests. They mean to be buying a vote.”9

Wallace Jefferson, Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, warned in 2009: “In a close race, the judge who solicits the most money from lawyers and their clients has the upper hand. But then the day of reckoning comes. When you appear before a court, you ask how much your lawyer gave to the judge’s campaign. If the opposing counsel gave more, you are cynical.”10

The new politics of judicial elections arrived at the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2009 case Caperton v. Massey. The case, in which coal executive Don Blankenship spent $3 million to help elect Judge Brent Benjamin to the West Virginia Supreme Court in 2004, while his com-pany appealed a $50 million jury award given to a competing coal company, crystallized the threat to due process when seven-figure judicial campaign supporters have business before the courts. When Justice Benjamin cast the tie-breaking vote to overturn the jury award, Hugh Caperton, owner of Harman Mining Corp., said his company’s right to a fair and impartial tribunal had been violated.

In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Ordering Justice Benjamin to remove himself from the case, the court for the first time ruled that campaign spending could threaten a litigant’s due-process rights: “Blankenship’s extraordinary contributions were made at a time when he had a vested stake in the outcome,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. “Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise

Total Spending for Top 10 States, 2000–2009 High Court Elections

StateCandidate Contributions

Non-candidate TV spending

Total Spending 2000–09

Alabama $40,964,590 $2,622,580 $43,587,170

Ohio $21,212,389 $8,622,603 $29,834,992

Pennsylvania* $21,319,171 $1,334,711 $22,653,882

Texas $19,197,826 $1,519,241 $20,717,067

Illinois** $20,655,924 $39,428 $20,695,352

Michigan $12,878,776 $5,724,667 $18,603,443

Mississippi $10,837,071 $1,247,703 $12,084,774

Wisconsin $$6,691,852 $4,848,367 $11,540,219

Nevada $9,848,192 $39,929 $9,888,121

W. Virginia $7,384,664 $2,181,468 $9,566,132

Figure 5.

*In 2009, the Pennsylvania Republican Party ran an estimated $975,849 in non-can-didate ads under its own name. Following the campaign, the party donated the ad expenditures as in-kind contributions to the Joan Orie Melvin campaign. To avoid double-counting, those ad costs are listed here only as contributions to the Melvin campaign. **In 2004, the Illinois parties and two political action com-mittees aired an esti-mated $5.8 million in non-candidate ads under their respec-tive organizational names. Following the campaign, the four groups donated the ad expenditures as in-kind contributions to the Lloyd Karmeier and Gordon Maag campaigns. To avoid double-counting, those ad costs are listed here only as contributions to the candidates.


Top U.S. Super Spenders, 2000–2009 High Court Elections

Spender Candidate Contributions

Non-Candidate Spending Total Linkage

U.S. Chamber/Ohio Affiliates $49,000 $7,560,168 $7,609,168 U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Alabama Democratic Party $5,460,117 $0 $5,460,117 Conduit/Plaintiffs’ lawyers

Business Council of Alabama $4,633,534 $0 $4,633,534 U.S. Chamber, NAM

Illinois Democratic Party $3,765,920* $0 $3,765,920 Conduit/Plaintiffs’ lawyers

Michigan Chamber of Commerce $164,140 $2,875,965 $3,040,105 U.S. Chamber

Don Blankenship $3,000 $2,978,207 $2,981,207 Massey Energy Co.


$2,474,905 $224,463 $2,699,568 Insurance money

Michigan Democratic Party $219,142 $2,467,121 $2,686,263 Unions, plaintiffs' lawyers

Pennsylvania Republican Party $2,274,534* $387,300 $2,661,834 Conservative groups, donors

Michigan Republican Party $217,233 $2,420,328 $2,637,561 Business executives

Total, Top 10 Spenders, 2000–2009

$19,261,525 $18,913,752 $38,175,277

Democratic/Plaintiff Lawyers/Unions

$9,445,179 $2,467,121 $11,912,300

Republican/Business/Conservative

$9,816,346 $16,446,631 $26,262,977

Other Notable Top Spenders Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association

$2,398,300 $0 $2,398,300 Plaintiffs’ lawyers

American Justice Partnership $300,000 $1,800,000 $2,100,000 National Association of Manufacturers


$9,600 $2,012,748 $2,022,348 U.S. Chamber, NAM

Illinois Republican Party $1,981,714* $0 $1,981,714 U.S. Chamber, insur-ance company money

Center for Individual Freedom $0 $1,824,140 $1,824,140 Ad money sources unknown; big tobacco ties

Greater Wisconsin Committee $0 $1,736,535 $1,736,535 Union backing

American Taxpayers Alliance $0 $1,293,080 $1,293,080 U.S. Chamber money


$0 $924,075 $924,075 National Rifle Association

Figure 6.*Includes money spent on party-sponsored TV ads that were listed as in-kind contributions to candidates


when—without the other parties’ consent—a man chooses the judge in his own cause.”11

How We Got Here

American history has no precedent for the financial arms race that threatens to overwhelm our courts of law. Until the 1990s, state Supreme Court races were typically low-key and low-budget. As a nationwide battle over tort reform heated up, battles over jury awards and product liability standards pitted pro-business groups against plaintiffs’ lawyers and labor unions.

Candidate fundraising for court races saw suc-cessive spikes, from an estimated $5.9 million in 1989–90 to $21.4 million in 1995–96. In 2000, candidate fundraising abruptly doubled again, to $45.9 million. From 1999–2000 through 2007–08, the average fundraising for each two-year election cycle has been $40.1 million, com-pared with $16.9 million the decade before.

One factor had a particular impact. Although special-interest spending had traditionally been a factor at the state level, national groups dra-matically increased their involvement in state-wide elections. In 2000, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced it was stepping up its involvement in Supreme Court elections, by allocating up to $10 million to as many as seven states where the Chamber said plaintiffs’ lawyers had too much influence.

By the end of 2002, unprecedented amounts of money poured into court races from both sides of the tort wars. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and allied forces had begun winning a string of victories.12 Of the top 10 election spenders nationally in 2000–09, seven had business or expressly Republican leanings, while three had plaintiffs’ lawyer and Democratic backing. Including independent TV ads by non-candidate groups, the top conservative/business spenders invested $26.2 million—considerably more than double the $11.9 million spent by three Democratic-leaning spenders. The new flood of money from both sides fed voter cyni-cism and fueled campaign-trail accusations that judges were beholden to their election backers.

Although national business groups, often work-ing with state-level affiliates, remained the decade’s most powerful force, by 2008 signs of a potential counter-trend emerged, as chief justices with high-level business backing were voted off the bench in Michigan, Mississippi and West Virginia.

Partisan elections traditionally draw more money than nonpartisan races, but that may be changing.13 Through much of the decade, states with nonpartisan elections, especially those with smaller populations, had escaped the worst excesses. Overall, candidates in 13 nonpartisan states raised $50.9 million in 2000–09, about 25 percent of the total, compared with nearly $153.8 million raised by candidates in nine par-tisan states, about 74 percent of all fundraising. Retention election candidates raised $2.2 mil-lion, about 1 percent.14

Large infusions of cash from special-interest groups showed that the nonpartisan label offered decreasing insulation against big-money cam-paigns. Including both candidate contributions

Retention Nonpartisan Partisan

$153.8 Million

$50.9 Million

$2.2 Million

Supreme Court Fundraising: Partisan, Nonpartisan and Retention Elections

Figure 7.


and independent TV ads by parties and special-interest groups, Georgia’s 2006 election cost $3.6 million. In Wisconsin, spending from all sources on two elections in 2007 and 2008 totaled $8.5 million—seven times as much as all Wisconsin Supreme Court elections put together from 2000 through 2006. National and state-level super spender groups played major roles in both states.

The Rise of the Super Spenders: Alabama

Super spenders—groups that repeatedly over-whelm all other givers in state Supreme Court elections—have been key factors in most states where election costs rose sharply in 2000–2009. Possibly the most extreme example is Alabama, where a select club of state and national special interests emerged to bankroll Supreme Court elections and fundamentally reshape the court.

In 1994, as Republicans mounted one of their first major efforts to win control of the Alabama Supreme Court, law professor Harold F. See Jr. raised $509,783 in a losing effort, and only seven of his contributions were greater than $5,000. Just two years later, he raised nearly $2.7 million and won. Nine of his top 10 donors were business PACs, led by the Business Council of Alabama ($331,000) and the Alabama Forestry Association ($105,000).15

For Alabama, the 1990s were a prelude to a surge in spending by single-interest groups and politi-

cal parties. The Business Council gave $480,500 to Bernard Harwood in 2000 (29 percent of his total); $540,000 to Michael Bolin in 2004 (32 percent of his total fundraising); and $600,000 to losing chief-justice candidate Drayton Nabers in 2006. That same year, the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee gave $842,825 to Nabers, and the Lawsuit Reform PAC gave Nabers $443,000.

By 2009, after Justice See retired, the court had been reshaped into a far more business-friendly tribunal. The Business Council of Alabama/Progress PAC was a top five contributor for seven of Alabama’s nine justices who stood for elec-tion during the decade. Three other PACs—the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, the Alabama Automobile Dealers Association and the Lawsuit Reform PAC of Alabama—were top five contributors to five justices. A fifth PAC—the Pro Business Pac—was a top five contributor to four Alabama justices.

In 2006, after Republicans had captured every seat on Alabama’s high court, challenger Sue Bell Cobb led a Democratic Party resurgence. She was equally dependent on large-scale back-ers, though she relied on a different group of funders. Justice Cobb received 32.3 percent of her $2.62 million from two sources: Franklin PAC ($638,000), run by a Montgomery lobbyist, and the state Democratic Party ($209,700). In 2008, Judge Deborah Bell Paseur, who narrowly lost her bid to replace Justice See, received $1.66 million—61.5 percent of her total—from one

“Alabama is first in the country in money spent on judicial races, and last in funding legal access for the poor.

I am embarrassed.”—J. Mark White, former president of the Alabama State Bar


source, the state Democratic Party. A review of campaign records showed that plaintiffs’ lawyers accounted for most of the Democratic money. (See “Shell Game on the Left?” page 46.)

Not coincidentally, the super spender groups made Alabama home to the nation’s most expen-sive state Supreme Court elections, even though it is only the nation’s 23rd most populous state. Candidates in Alabama raised $40.9 million in 2000–09, nearly double the next most costly state, Pennsylvania (where candidates raised $21.3 million).

Supreme Court Super Spenders in Other States

Alabama’s judicial politics are extreme, but a similar story has been repeated elsewhere. Both in 2007–08, and over the 2000–09 decade, the most expensive campaigns in other states overwhelmingly involved tales of super spenders, both as campaign contributors and sponsors of independent ads. The same players often reap-pear, again and again.

In 2007–08, Pennsylvania had the highest total cost: about $10.3 million, including $9.5 mil-lion in candidate fundraising, led by $913,500 from the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, and an estimated $858,000 in independent TV ad spending by the Virginia-based Center for Individual Freedom. The state GOP and trial-lawyers association led the way in 2009, with the GOP spending about $1.4 million for Joan Orie Melvin and the trial lawyers contributing $1.2 million to Democrat Jack Panella.

In Wisconsin, which ranked second in 2007–08 with a total of $8.5 million in fundraising and inde-pendent TV ads, an explosion in special-interest money was led by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the labor-friendly Greater

Wisconsin Committee. Alabama was third in 2007–08, at $5.4 million when accounting for contributions and independent TV spending, again by the Center for Individual Freedom. Other top-spending states included Michigan, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia and Nevada.

Triumph of the Super Spenders: Illinois

Perhaps no race in the last decade better showed the potential of a super spender takeover than the 2004 Illinois race between Lloyd Karmeier and Gordon Maag. The two ran in a semi-rural district in southwestern Illinois, which had few local resources to fund a costly court race. But the local Madison County court had been branded a “judicial hellhole” by the American Tort Reform Association, which was unhappy about jury awards and class-action litigation against national corporations in the county.

A study by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform showed the players whose money found its way to southwestern Illinois that autumn. Karmeier’s supporters included the U.S. and Illinois Chambers of Commerce (which together spent a total of more than $2 million), the American Tort Reform Association (which spent $515,000), and multiple insurance and medical organizations. Contributing to Maag were a broad array of Illinois plaintiffs’ lawyers, funnel-ing their money through the state Democratic Party. Altogether, the candidates raised $9.3 million, including multi-million-dollar media buys by the state parties and other groups.16 The amount, still a national record for a two-candidate race, was almost identical to the combined estimate of the amount raised for all races nationally just 12 years earlier.

“That’s obscene for a judicial race. What does it gain people? How can people have faith in the system?”

— Illinois Justice Lloyd Karmeier, after winning $9.3 million 2004 election


Money: Focus on 2007–08

Five States Lead the ListIn 2007–08, 84 candidates on the ballot for state Supreme Court seats raised $43.8 million and five states set fundraising records.17 But the full blast of the super spender phenomenon was felt especially in five states, where a combination of candidate fundraising and independent ads shat-tered records, and in two states sent advertising to new lows of personal assault.

The states experiencing the greatest special-interest spending in 2007–08 were Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Alabama and Texas.

Based purely on candidate fundraising records, Pennsylvania’s 2007 race was easily the nation’s biggest blowout in 2007–08. The $9.5 million raised by eight general and primary election candidates more than doubled the state’s previ-ous record of $4.1 million. Other fundraising records were set in Louisiana, Nevada, West Virginia and Wisconsin (in 2007). Chief Justice Cliff Taylor set an individual fundraising record in Michigan, but still lost—due in part to a Democratic Party TV blitz. Likewise, Democrats set a TV spending record in Texas.

The numbers are even higher when independent TV ad spending is factored in.18 For instance, an estimated $858,611 campaign by the Virginia-

based Center for Individual Freedom helped push Pennsylvania’s total spending to $10.3 million.

The increase was almost as startling in Wisconsin. Candidates raised $3.8 million in the 2007 and 2008 elections, the nation’s fourth-highest total for the election cycle, but that was just the beginning of the story. An estimated $4.6 mil-lion was spent on independent campaign activ-ity, very possibly a conservative estimate. That raised total spending to $8.5 million, making Wisconsin the second costliest state in 2007–08. Likewise, Michigan ranks only ninth in can-didate fundraising, but rises to fifth when an estimated $2.37 million in special-interest group and political party TV ads are factored in.

Examining independent expenditures under-scores the real impact of institutional super spenders playing in the 2007–08 elections, in a way that official candidate finance records cannot. Looking only at candidate fundrais-ing reports shows that the top 10 contributors, excluding self-financing candidates, nation-ally gave an average of $514,098 each. When adding in estimates of non-candidate group expenditures on TV ads, the average surges to $1,234,880. All of the top 10 super spenders in 2007–08 were institutional, such as PACs and independent special-interest groups—although,

Total Supreme Court Spending: Top 10 States, 2007–08

State Candidate Money Independent TV Total Spending

Pennsylvania $9,464,975 $858,611 $10,323,586

Wisconsin (07 & 08) $3,876,595 $4,642,659 $8,519,254

Alabama $4,472,621 $965,529 $5,438,150

Texas $4,310,923 $904,978 $5,215,901

Michigan $2,614,260 $2,370,260 $4,984,520

Louisiana $3,686,879 $306,120 $3,992,999

Mississippi $2,976,446 $860,532 $3,836,978

West Virginia $3,303,380 $479,255 $3,782,635

Nevada $3,135,214 $0 $3,135,214

Ohio $2,448,388 $684,623 $3,133,011

Figure 8.


Top 10 Supreme Court Super Spenders, 2007–08

Spender Candidate Contributions

Independent TV Spending Total

State, National Links States/Years


$8,100 $2,012,748 $2,020,848 U.S. Chamber, NAM Wisconsin, 2007–2008


$0 $1,824,140 $1,824,140 Big Tobacco, money sources unknown

Pennsylvania 2007, Alabama 2008

Alabama Democratic Party

$1,661,550 $0 $1,661,550 Plaintiffs’ lawyers Alabama 2008


$0 $1,430,807 $1,430,807 Labor Unions, Democratic leadership

Wisconsin, 2007–2008

Michigan Democratic Party

$64,259 $1,164,132 $1,228,391 Heavy Labor, Plaintiffs’ Lawyer Support

Michigan 2008

Texas Democratic Party

$36,000 $904,978 $940,978 Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Texas 2008

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Assn

$913,500 $0 $913,500 Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Pennsylvania 2007

Michigan Chamber of Commerce

$34,000 $804,869 $838,869 U.S. Chamber Michigan 2008

Pennsylvania Republican Party

$805,094 $0 $805,094 Conservative groups, leaders

Pennsylvania 2007

Partnership for Ohio’s Future

$0 $684,623 $684,623 U.S., Ohio Chambers Ohio 2008

Total, Top 10 Spenders, 2007–08

$3,522,503 $8,826,297 $12,348,800

Average, Top 10 spender, 2007–08

$522,650 $882,629 $1,234,880

Democratic/Plaintiff Lawyers/Unions

$2,675,309 $3,499,917 $6,175,226

Republican/Business/Conservative

$847,194 $5,326,380 $6,173,574

Figure 9.


as Massey Coal CEO Don Blankenship showed in the 2004 West Virginia election, individual super spenders can have significant impact.

The nation’s top super spender in 2007–08 was the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce’s PAC, which spent an estimated total of $2,020,848 on the state’s 2007 and 2008 elections. Three Democratic state committees also were in the top 10. In previous years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have been identified as underwriting Democratic ad blitzes, and published reports in Alabama and Texas suggested the same in 2008.

A summary of the top super spenders reveals one interesting distinction. For the decade as a whole, conservative/business groups dominated the top 10 election-spenders list, occupying seven slots and outspending more liberal opponents by 2 to 1. But in 2007–08, there was a virtual financial standoff. There were five super spender groups from each end of the spectrum, with each side totaling just over $6 million apiece.

In Wisconsin, independent groups played a critical role in the defeat of Justice Louis Butler. Three groups in particular led the way, bank-rolling many of the television ads attacking

Justice Butler. Together, the Club for Growth, Coalition for America’s Families and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spent a total of $2,118,807 on TV ads in the 2008 Butler-Gableman race.

Michigan was not far behind. The state parties and the Chamber of Commerce spent an esti-mated $2.4 million on TV ads, twice as much as the candidates themselves. (Locally gathered data, which included cable TV ads and small TV markets, suggested much higher totals in both Wisconsin and Michigan. For example, the Michigan Campaign Finance Network reported $3.8 million in independent TV ads in 2008.)19

Chief Justice Cliff Taylor raised nearly $1.9 mil-lion, breaking the record of $1.3 million he set in 2000, while challenger Diane Hathaway raised $754,000. But more money did not spell victory. Taylor, whose reelection was backed by a total of $3.1 million in spending, including Chamber and GOP ads, lost by 10 points to Hathaway. Her total spending, including Democratic ads, was $1.9 million.

Figure 10.*Other includes retired persons, civil servants, local or municipal elected officials, tribal gov-ernments, clergy, nonprofits, and mili-tary persons.

Lawyers/Lobbyists$13,357,016

Political Party$3,697,062

Business$9,458,741

Organized Labor$2,337,629

Unknown/Unitemized$7,361,095

Other*$2,310,228

Candidate Contributions$6,499,281

Ideology/Single Issue$629,383

Total Contributions:

$45,650,435

Contributions by Sector, 2007–08 High Court Elections


Supreme Court Fundraising by Candidates on Ballot, 2007–08

StateContested or Retention

Number of Candidates on Ballot Total Raised

Pennsylvania Partisan/Retention* 8 $9,464,975

Alabama Partisan 2 $4,472,621

Texas Partisan 8 $4,310,923

Wisconsin Nonpartisan 5 $3,876,595

Louisiana Partisan 5 $3,686,879

West Virginia Partisan 5 $3,303,480

Nevada Nonpartisan 6 $3,135,214

Mississippi Nonpartisan 9 $2,976,446

Michigan Partisan 2 $2,614,260

Ohio Partisan 4 $2,448,388

Illinois Partisan 1 $1,091,092

Kentucky Nonpartisan 4 $515,711

Washington Nonpartisan 6 $417,034

Georgia Nonpartisan 2 $389,102

Montana Nonpartisan/Retention* 3 $334,446

Idaho Nonpartisan 2 $243,190

Minnesota Nonpartisan 5 $196,402

North Carolina Nonpartisan 2 $178,273

Arkansas Nonpartisan 2 $86,635

New Mexico Partisan 1 $51,656

Oregon Nonpartisan 2 $7,525

TOTAL 84 $43,800,847** * In Pennsylvania, justices initially are elected to court seats, then face retention elections. In Montana, justices face retention elections if no challengers enter a competitive nonpartisan election.** Does not include money raised by candidates for future election cycles. When including future elections, a total of $45.6 million was raised in 2007–08.

Figure 11.


Other States of Note in 2007–08

In Alabama, more than $5.4 million was spent, with candidates raising a total of more than $4.4 million and the Virginia-based Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) spending an estimated $965,529 in TV ads. The extra air time helped boost Republican Greg Shaw, who narrowly defeated Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur. Just four groups accounted for 61 percent of all contributions and independent expenditures—$3,316,358 of the $5,438,150 spent in Alabama. Those groups were the Alabama Democratic Party ($1,661,550 in contributions), CFIF ($965,529 in TV ads), Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee ($434,079 in contri-butions), and the Business Council of Alabama ($275,200 in contributions).

In Mississippi, one out-of-state group, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, spent more on TV ads, an estimated $660,472, than all the other candidates and independent groups put together. The alliance had mounted a similar campaign in 2002 to knock off Justice Chuck McRae. Also running ads were Mississippians for Economic Progress, traditionally a funnel for U.S. Chamber of Commerce money. And IMPAC, a campaign arm of the Business & Industry Political Education Committee that ran an independent campaign supporting Chief Justice Jim Smith, received a $125,000 check from the National Association of Manufacturers-related American Justice Partnership. Justice Smith suffered a surprise defeat to Jim Kitchens and was voted out of office.20

West Virginia experienced a significant shot of independent TV money from the state Chamber of Commerce, amounting to nearly a half-million in estimated ad-time purchases. And during a West Virginia primary, an ad patterned after “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” mock-ingly showed pictures of Chief Justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard vacationing on the Riviera with Don Blankenship, the coal executive at the heart of the Caperton v. Massey case. Maynard was defeated.

In Nevada, newly elected Justice Kris Pickering was her own biggest backer, supplying 50 percent

of her $1.3 million in fundraising, as she and Mark Gibbons were elected. The MGM Mirage casino, a regular player in Nevada Supreme Court elections, placed winning bets on both candidates. The $3,135,214 raised by candidates marked the third straight election in which con-tributions totaled in the multi-millions, and it narrowly broke the previous mark, set in 2004.

Based solely on candidate fundraising records (See chart, Page 20), the most expensive campaign totals in 2007–08 occurred in Pennsylvania, fol-lowed by Alabama, Texas and Wisconsin.

While candidates must list the sources of their money, many independent groups do not. Inevitably, some of the groups embroiled in controversy were also the most mysterious. Who, for instance, funded the Center for Individual Freedom’s $965,000 TV ad campaign backing Alabama’s Greg Shaw, or its $858,611 cam-paign in 2007 pushing Maureen Lally-Green in Pennsylvania? Ads by opponent Deborah Bell Paseur suggested that it was “the likes of the oil and gas industry” that bankrolled the Virginia-based group, but the charge was unproven. The Center, whose origins date back to the Big-Tobacco funded National Smokers Alliance, has refused to disclose its funders.

And who ultimately paid for $660,000 in air time purchased by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, in its attempt to unseat Mississippi Justice Oliver Diaz, Jr.? The group, also based in Virginia, has been linked in pub-lished reports to the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But because Mississippi’s governor vetoed a 2005 bill that would have required independent groups to disclose their financial sources for election expenditures, it was impossible to know where the group got its money.

2009 High Court Elections: Costly Trends Continue

Continuing established trends, state Supreme Court elections remained costly and nega-tive in 2009. Total candidate contributions in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Louisiana exceed-ed $8.3 million, and non-candidate groups spent


an estimated $305,000 in independent TV ads, bringing total spending to $8.7 million.

In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, candidates faced accusations of special-interest ties, which reflected growing public concerns about the impact of campaign cash and the unsavory loyalties such money implies among judges and campaign supporters.

In Pennsylvania, Democrat Jack Panella broke a state record for individual fund-raising but still lost to Republican Joan Orie Melvin. According to state data, Judge Panella raised 2,706,137, more than the $2.3 million raised and spent by the state’s previous record setter, Justice Seamus McCaffery in 2007.

Judge Orie Melvin lambasted Panella for tak-ing $1.2 million from the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association. In October, she told the Pennsylvania Press Club: “Is it pay-to-play? Is it justice for sale? I don’t know, but it sure sounds suspect.”21

But Orie Melvin’s final campaign records showed the gap between her fund-raising and Panella’s was much narrower than she’d suggest-ed. Although she reported raising only $942,978 during the campaign, she later reported receiv-ing more than $1.4 million in in-kind contribu-tions from the state Republican Party, raising her total funding to $2,479,507—a total that also broke McCaffery’s 2007 record. Total campaign fundraising by all of Pennsylvania’s general and primary election candidates in 2009 was $5.4 million.

The Republican backing, mainly in the form of pro-Melvin TV ads aired under the GOP label, was confirmed by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG estimates, which showed more than $975,000 in state party ads.22

In Wisconsin, ads by Judge Randy Koschnick attacked Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson for not recusing herself from a case involving relative-ly modest campaign contributors. Abrahamson won easily, both in the fund-raising battle and among voters. The $1,452,000 she raised, com-pared with just $171,000 for Koschnick, broke (albeit narrowly) a record set in 2007 by Justice Annette Ziegler. Nearly $306,000 in TV ads, spent by the Greater Wisconsin Committee on Abrahamson’s behalf, also helped her to victory.

In central Louisiana, an October special election to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat was surpris-ingly costly and nasty. Judge Marcus Clark defeated Jimmy Faircloth, a former aide to Gov. Bobby Jindal, despite campaign charges that Clark had once been suspended as a judge for failing to issue timely rulings. The candidates raised a total of $1.3 million.

All told, an estimated $4,667,473 was spent on TV ads in 2009. Of that, $3,385,916 was spent by candidates, $975,849 by party organizations, and $305,708 by special-interest groups. Judge Panella was the top TV spender, with an estimated $1,853,695. As exorbitant as his spending turned out to be, it was nearly matched by the combined advertising of Orie Melvin ($516,758) and the Pennsylvania Republican Party ($975,849).

“The influence of big money in judicial elections has exploded in this decade, and it’s something we have to pay attention to because it has totally eroded public confidence in the judicial system.”—Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania



CHAPTER 1 NOTESThese numbers are slightly higher than those 1. reported in the New Politics of Judicial Elections 2000. Campaign fundraising data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics are subject to minor fluctuations over time, as a result of late candidate filings and amendments to earlier finance records.

Unless otherwise specified, fundraising data include 2. money raised by candidates for future election cycles. The 2007–08 total includes $1.8 million raised by candidates for competitive and retention elections scheduled after 2008. Candidates on the ballot in 2007–08 raised $43.8 million, including money raised before the actual year of their election.

Reporting techniques have been progressively refined 3. and improved since the National Institute on Money in State Politics began gathering information on state court races. While some details are not available for the early 1990s elections, such as details about some contributors, the NIMSP data for the 1990s court elections are the best and most complete in existence.

Totals include previously unreported TV ad data from 4. odd-year elections during the decade, as compiled by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG for the National Center for State Courts and the Justice at Stake Campaign. The odd-year numbers augment data previously collected for even-year elections by the Brennan Center for Justice. For a fuller explanation of TNS/CMAG methodology, see Chapter 2.

Campaign fundraising data come from 5. National Institute on Money in State Politics. Television data for independent election ads are compiled by CMAG for the Brennan Center for Justice.

J. Christopher Heagarty, “The Changing Face of 6. Judicial Elections,” North Carolina State Bar Journal 19, 20 (Winter 2002).

Caperton v. A.T. 7. Massey Coal Co., Brief of Amici Curiae, The Conference of Chief Justices, in Support of Neither Party 4 (U.S. No. 08-22), available at http://brennan.3cdn.net/d6274e472669a87b58_dqm6i-i1z9.pdf.

8. Justice at Stake Campaign, “2001 National Bipartisan Survey of Almost 2,500 State Judges” available at http://www.justiceatstake.org/media/cms/JASJudgesSurveyResults_EA8838C0504A5.pdf.

Adam Liptak. “Tilting the Scales?: The 9. Ohio Experience; Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Court’s Ruling” The New York Times, Oct. 1, 2006, available at www.nytimes.com.

Wallace B. Jefferson, “Why not elect judges on 10. merit, not whim?” The Dallas Morning News, March 12, 2009, available at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-jefferson_13edi.State.Edition1.2212195.html.

Caperton v. Massey11. , 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009). Ruling available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdf.

Robert Lenzner and Matthew Miller, “Buying 12. Justice,” Forbes.com, July 21, 2003, available at http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0721/064_print.html.

According to the 13. American Judicature Society, nine states are classified as having partisan elec-tions for state Supreme Court seats: Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. Thirteen states are labeled as nonpartisan: Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. Four of the above states—Illinois, Montana, New Mexico and Pennsylvania—have hybrid systems in which Supreme Court judges must face at least one partisan or nonpartisan election, but otherwise may face reten-tion elections once on the court. A full summary is available at the American Judicature Society “Judicial Selection in the States” web site, http://www.judicial-selection.us/judicial_selection_materials/index.cfm.

Two states, 14. Arkansas and North Carolina, had partisan elections for appellate judges in 2000, but switched to nonpartisan elections in 2002. While they are counted as nonpartisan states, money contributed in the 2000 elections was apportioned to the partisan category.

All 15. Alabama data are from National Institute on Money in State Politics, www.followthemoney.org.

A detailed chart of the 16. Illinois Campaign for Political reform is available in The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2004, available at http://www.justiceatstake.org/media/cms/NewPoliticsReport2004_83BBFBD7C43A3.pdf.

These numbers refer only to candidates on a ballot 17. in 2007 or 2008, and do not include money raised by candidates for future elections.

All TV data in this section are from TNS Media 18. Intelligence/CMAG, as provided to the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Center for State Courts. For a fuller explanation of TNS/CMAG methodology, see Chapter 2.

19. Michigan Campaign Finance Network, “2008 Citizen’s Guide to Michigan Campaign Finance,” Tables 15 and 16, http://www.mcfn.org/pdfs/reports/MCFNCitGuide08.pdf.

Adam Lynch, “Court Showdown: Chamber v. 20. Plaintiffs,” Jackson Free Press, Oct. 29, 2008, http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/court_showdown_chamber_v_plaintiffs_102908/. For original campaign filing, see http://www.sos.state.ms.us/PDF-Out/000000059296.pdf, Page 15.

“Donations Become Issue in 21. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Race,” Associated Press, Oct. 26, 2009, http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/dona-tions_become_issue_in_penn.html.

For more information on TNS Media Intelligence/22. CMAG’s methodology, see Chapter 2.

CHAPTER 2

Court TV: The Rise of Costly Attack Ads

Introduction: After the Flood

Fueled by the explosion of money in high court elections, the past decade has also seen an unprecedented surge in money spent on TV ads in judicial races. From 2000–2009, an estimated $93.6 million was spent on air time for high court candidate TV ads, including an estimated $6.6 million spent in the unusually costly odd-year elections in 2007.1

Though 2004 remains the high-water mark, 2008 showed that the flood of TV money remains strong. At over $19 million, more money was spent on Supreme Court TV ads in 2008 than in any year except 2004—when 34 con-tested races had TV ads, compared with 21 in 2008.2 More ads ran than ever before, and for the first time nationally, special interest groups and political parties combined to spend more on TV ads than did the candidates on the ballot.

When odd-year elections are combined, 2007–08 was the costliest biennium ever, at $26.6 mil-lion (see “2007: TV Spending in an Off Year,” Page 36). During those two years, eight states set all-time records for spending on TV ads. The figures are further evidence of a forward march toward more money and harsher ads.

The 2007–08 biennium illustrated the new imperative in state Supreme Court elections. Put simply, massive spending on television is all but a prerequisite for gaining the bench. And to compete, judges need tremendous financial sup-port, either in the form of large contributions or independent expenditures.

From 2004 onward, no one could doubt how expensive and hard-fought these judicial elec-

tion air wars would be. All that remained was a question of degree: How far were candidates willing to go? How negative were special interest groups capable of being? How much would state parties spend to throw their weight behind the endorsements and attacks?

An analysis of the 2008 cycle answers some of these questions—and raises new ones. The question after 2008, given the exorbitant totals and their confirmation of mounting trends, is whether now the perception is inevitable, at least in certain situations, that justice is for sale. Likewise, the corollary question is whether, in the face of big money expenditures by liti-gants and lawyers, and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Caperton v. Massey, states and litigants will take proactive steps to combat that perception.

Just 22 percent of states with contested Supreme Court elections featured television advertising in 2000, but that number jumped to 64 percent in 2002. By 2004, judicial TV ads were the unques-tioned norm; 80 percent of states with contested elections ran TV ads. And that number rose even further, to 91 percent, in 2006. Of the 16 states with contested elections in 2007 and 2008, TV ads appeared in 14 of them (more than 85 percent). Minnesota and Washington were the only two states where television ads did not run in competitive high court contests.

More advertising, of course, means spikes in spending. For the third consecutive even-year election cycle, each state with TV advertising averaged over $1 million in spending on those ads; in 2008, $1.5 million on television ads was spent on average in 13 states, down slightly from 2006 but bracing by any estimation. And 2008 * Chapter 2 notes

are on page 37.


broke the record for number of ads aired on TV—58,879 ads were recorded, over 16,000 more than the previous record set in 2004. Among the races that featured television ads, 2,803 spots ran on average in each contest in 2008, compared to 1,242 in 2004.

Independent Ads Lead the Attack

The decade also saw a surge in judicial cam-paign advertising by special-interest groups and political parties, and a startling rise in negative

advertising—two trends that with the exception of 2006 have been interwoven.

From 2000–2009, an estimated $93.6 million was spent on air time in high court contests, including previously unreported ads from odd-year elections in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Ads by non-candidate groups played a critical role, accounting for about $39 million, or 42 per-cent of the total—with special interest groups spending $27.5 million, and party organizations adding $11.7 million. In the two most expensive TV cycles, 2004 and 2008, independent ads from special interest and party organizations accounted for almost half of all air-time costs. In

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 20092006 20072004 20052002 20032000 2001

Even-Year Elections

Off-Year Elections

Approximate Number of Television Ads Aired:

220,000

Tota

l TV

Spo

t Cou

nt in

�ou

sand

s

Number of TV Ad Airings by Year, 2000–2009 High Court Elections

Data provided by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG

Figure 12.

26 Court TV: The Rise of Costly Attack Ads

2008, they combined to account for 52.2 percent of TV ad costs.3

Beyond the dollar totals, non-candidate groups accounted for an out-

sized share of the negative ads—frequently becoming the attack dogs of state Supreme Court elections.

In 2000, special interest group ads accounted for 61.9 percent of all docu-mented attack ads, even though they only purchased 26.7 percent of the esti-mated $10.6 million in air time for judi-cial ads. A similar pattern prevailed in 2008. Special interest groups and state political parties were responsible for 65 percent and 22 percent of all negative ads, respectively. Of 20,739 ads aired by special interest groups, 14,749 came from pro-business or otherwise conser-vative groups. Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Alabama offered prime examples of interest groups on the offensive in 2008.

0

$5 Million

$10 Million

$15 Million

$20 Million

$25 Million

$30 Million

2009*2007-20082005-20062003-20042001-20021999-2000

Total Spent on TV Ads 2000–2009:

$93,665,447

Total Spending on High Court TV Ads, 2000–2009

2009 $4,667,473*

2008 $19,945,970

2007 $6,663,382

2006 $16,086,452

2005 $523,811

2004 $24,423,252

2003 $745,400

2002 $8,441,996

2001 $1,490,800

2000 $10,676,911

Total $93,665,447

Figure 14. Source: TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG

Ohio 2000 Ad:

Is Justice for Sale?

• One year only; 2010 data not available. Data provided by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG

Figure 13.


High Court Election TV Spending, 2000–2009 (in order of total cost)

StateCandidate Airings

Candidate Cost

Group Airings

Group Cost

Party Airings

Party Cost

Total Airings

Total Cost

Ohio 32,195 $12,742,243 14,807 $7,847,403 2,342 $775,200 49,344 $21,364,846

Alabama 40,167 $13,068,197 6,100 $2,588,132 139 $34,448 46,406 $15,690,777

Michigan 8,756 $5,258,283 3,545 $3,248,059 4,884 $2,476,608 17,185 $10,982,950

Pennsylvania 15,821 $7,674,018 1,286 $947,411 4,277 $1,925,680 21,384 $10,547,109

Wisconsin 9,611 $2,484,547 15,219 $4,848,367 $0 $0 24,830 $7,332,914

Illinois 2,252 $1,275,692 1,731 $1,624,553 4,990 $4,240,885 8,973 $7,141,130

West Virginia

5,356 $1,222,513 5,740 $2,181,468 0 $0 11,096 $3,403,981

Georgia 883 $1,065,619 1,073 $1,321,494 897 $741,459 2,853 $3,128,572

Nevada 5,807 $2,854,746 50 $39,929 0 $0 5,857 $2,894,675

Texas 1,320 $1,014,297 $0 $0 2,896 $1,519,241 4,216 $2,533,538

Mississippi 3,612 $1,165,212 3,996 $1,247,703 0 $0 7,608 $2,412,915

North Carolina

4,077 $1,291,450 327 $272,715 0 $0 4,404 $1,564,165

Louisiana 2,168 $944,611 507 $306,120 0 $0 2,675 $1,250,731

Washington 273 $66,127 1,118 $1,092,304 0 $0 1,391 $1,158,431

Kentucky 2,895 $1,007,886 0 $0 0 $0 2,895 $1,007,886

Oregon 1,176 $576,304 0 $0 0 $0 1,176 $576,304

New Mexico 326 $383,023 0 $0 0 $0 326 $383,023

Arkansas 326 $161,540 0 $0 0 $0 326 $161,540

Montana 548 $60,801 0 $0 0 $0 548 $60,801

Idaho 479 $42,447 133 $26,712 0 $0 612 $69,159

All States 138,048 $54,359,556 55,632 $27,592,370 20,425 $11,713,521 214,105 $93,665,447

2009 $4,667,473*

2008 $19,945,970

2007 $6,663,382

2006 $16,086,452

2005 $523,811

2004 $24,423,252

2003 $745,400

2002 $8,441,996

2001 $1,490,800

2000 $10,676,911

Total $93,665,447

Figure 15. Data provided by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG

“I never felt so much like a hooker down by the bus station. . . as I did in a judicial race. Everyone interested in contributing has very specific interests. They mean to be buying a vote.”

— Paul Pfeifer, Ohio Supreme Court justice, 2006 New York Times interview


Occasionally, negative ads have backfired. In 2000, a Chamber-sponsored attack ad against Ohio Justice Alice Resnick depicted a “Blind Justice” statue peeking under her blindfold as cash was placed on the scales. Backlash from offended Ohio voters helped return Resnick to office.

But more often, negative ads helped defeat court candidates—some, but not all, of whom had little public profile and could easily be defined by nasty and often misleading 30-second spots. For example, in 2000, a Michigan Republican Party ad accused three Democratic candidates of freeing killers and rapists, “again and again.” In 2004, a $3 million independent campaign painted West Virginia Justice Warren McGraw as “radical” and “dangerous,” also accusing him of freeing child molesters. In 2008, a Michigan Democratic Party portrayed Michigan Chief Justice Cliff Taylor as sleeping on the bench. Each of the targeted candidates was defeated.

Party Ads Crucial in ’08

Nationwide, a significant percentage of attacks came from the state political parties themselves. Seven of the 14 states where TV ads aired in 2007 and 2008 Supreme Court contests involved partisan elections.4 State political parties aired ads in only two of those states, Texas and Michigan, but those ads constituted about 11 percent of all TV spots nationwide. In Texas and Michigan, these attacks included ad hominem assaults and charges of guilt by association, with images, for example, linking Chief Justice Cliff Taylor to the unpopular President Bush. Ads sponsored by the various state Democratic par-ties outnumbered those of Republicans nearly 4 to 1, reflecting the Democrats’ 2.5 to 1 spending advantage on TV ads.

The top five spenders on TV ads in 2008 included, unsurprisingly, three special interest groups: Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce5 (spending just shy of $1.3 million), the Greater Wisconsin Committee6 (at a little over $1.1 mil-

Top 12 TV Ad Spenders, 2000–2009 High Court Elections

Group Est. Ad Costs Comments

U.S. Chamber/Ohio affiliates $4,258,822 Includes ads by Chamber, Citizens for a Strong Ohio, Partnership for Ohio’s Future

Michigan Chamber $2,875,965 State affiliate of U.S. Chamber

Illinois Democratic Party $2,519,473 Funding From plaintiffs’ lawyers

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce $2,012,748 Affiliate of U.S. Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers

Michigan Democratic Party $1,863,189 Heavy support from plaintiffs’ lawyers, unions

Center for Individual Freedom $1,824,140 Big tobacco ties, other funding unknown

Illinois Republican Party $1,816,705 U.S. Chamber funded 2004 ad blitz

Greater Wisconsin Committee $1,736,535 Organized labor, state Democratic ties

Pennsylvania Republican Party* $1,559,280 Funding from conservative groups

Citizens for an Independent Court $1,543,478 Lawyers, unions in 2000/02 Ohio elections

Safety and Prosperity Coalition $1,321,494 Funding from American Justice Partnership (formed by National Association of Manufacturers)

American Taxpayers Alliance $1,293,080 Received significant U.S. Chamber funding

Figure 16.

Data provided by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG.


lion), and the Center for Individual Freedom7 (over $965,000 in Alabama). In two of these cases, the candidate sponsored by the group was the better-funded candidate—in terms of spend-ing on TV ads—and went on to win the elec-tion. The Michigan Democratic State Central Committee was the fourth biggest spender on TV ads during 2007–08, putting $1,164,132 toward Diane Hathaway’s November victory.

The outlier, and the single greatest spender on TV ads in 2008, was Alabama Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur, whose narrow loss to Republican Greg Shaw speaks volumes about where state Supreme Court elections stand after 2008. The only one among the top five spending leaders to have put her money toward a losing cause, Paseur spent $1,741,179 on television ads, but she was still outspent by the combination of her opponent’s campaign and the conservative interest group that supported him. Shaw spent

$884,828 on TV ads, and benefited from the $965,529 in outside sup-port from the Virginia-based Center for Individual Freedom.

Paseur’s loss was, in the end, an example of the fact that, absent public financing, massive fundraising from lawyers, parties, and interest groups with causes before the courts is increasingly necessary, but not suf-ficient to win election to state high courts.

TV Spending, 2008 High Court Elections (in order of total cost)

State Candidate Group Party Total

Airings Cost Airings Cost Airings Cost Airings Cost

Wisconsin 1,904 $411,517 10,056 $3,377,640 0 $0 11,960 $3,789,157

Michigan 3,704 $1,268,391 1,208 $804,869 3,471 $1,565,391 8,383 $3,638,651

Alabama 8,505 $2,626,007 2,444 $965,529 0 $0 10,949 $3,591,536

Texas 937 $728,321 0 $0 2,813 $1,377,003 3,750 $2,105,324

Nevada 3,906 $1,450,506 0 $0 0 $0 3,906 $1,450,506

Mississippi 1,798 $434,537 2,765 $860,532 0 $0 4,563 $1,295,069

West Virginia

4,119 $788,995 1,932 $479,225 $0 6,051 $1,268,220

Ohio 2,670 $574,208 1,760 $684,623 0 $0 4,430 $1,258,831

Louisiana 1,880 $791,399 574 $306,120 0 $0 2,454 $1,097,519

North Carolina

1,049 $234,274 0 $0 0 $0 1,049 $234,274

Kentucky 334 $113,635 0 $0 0 $0 334 $113,635

Montana 571 $60,801 0 $0 0 $0 571 $60,801

Idaho 479 $42,447 0 $0 0 $0 479 $42,447

Total 31,856 $9,525,038 20,739 $7,478,538 6,284 $2,942,394 58,879 $19,945,970

Greater Wisconsin Committee,

TV Ad from 2008


Figure 18.

Data provided by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG.


In 2008, spending on television ads in Michigan was 4.5 times higher than just two years earlier, placing the state third nationally in total ad spending for the 2007–08 biennium, behind only Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.8 More strik-ing still was the victory of Diane Hathaway, a Democratic challenger, who unseated the state’s sitting Supreme Court Chief Justice, Republican Cliff Taylor. Taylor’s loss marked the first time in Michigan state history that an incumbent chief justice lost a bid for re-election.

A confluence of factors may partly explain the circumstances of Hathaway’s commanding victory. A Democrat, she ran with significant party support in a state from which the national Republicans effectively withdrew in the midst of the presidential race. In a race where more than 40 percent of all television spending (in excess of $1.5 million) came from the state political parties, and in which one of those parties, while still spending on the court race, significantly cut back on its in-state “ground-game,” party presence may have been a key to Hathaway’s campaign success.

Justice Taylor had more overall air-time sup-port than Judge Hathaway, with ads sponsored by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Republican Party, and his own campaign. Hathaway’s air-time support drew from her own campaign as well as the state Democratic Party. The Michigan Democratic State Central Committee outspent its

Republican counterpart nearly 3 to 1, putting up over $1 million (almost a third of the money spent on TV advertising in the state) to attack Taylor. In all, combined television spending—including TV ads by the Michigan Chamber, state political parties, and candidates themselves—amounted to $2,075,423 in TV costs for Taylor and $1,563,228 for Hathaway.

The Democratic Party’s attacks on Taylor were significant and perhaps decisive. Whether they were accurate portrayals of the facts remains a matter of in-state debate. The state Democratic Party ran over 2,800 television ads, 34 percent of all spots run in the state and more than any other single group. Every Democratic ad attacked Taylor.

One ad, in particular, was thought to have been crucial. It begins with talk of a nightmare: a dramatized image purporting to show Cliff Taylor asleep on the bench in the middle of a trial involving the death of six children in a fire at a public housing unit. Testimonials (from the actual people involved in the trial) follow. The mothers of the children say that Taylor fell asleep “several times in the middle of our argu-ments.” A recurrent image shown throughout the ad—the one that opens and concludes it—is apparently of Taylor sleeping, though on the bot-tom of each frame is the word “Dramatization.”

Accounts of Taylor sleeping on the bench seem dubious. The two mothers of the children were

the only people who claimed that he had fallen asleep. Their own lawyer seemed to evade the question when asked (even though he was outspoken in his criticism of Taylor), and Michigan Government Television broadcasts of the trial do not show any images of Taylor asleep on the bench. Moreover, according to Fact Check.org of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, the allegation itself had not surfaced publicly until a month before the election, even though the trial in question had taken place over a year earlier.9

State in Focus: Michigan

Party Ads Bathe Both Candidates in Mud

The “Sleeping Judge”:

Democratic Ad Slams Michigan Chief Justice



TV: Focus on 2008

2008 Television Advertising SnapshotsIn 2008, independent special interest groups played an unprecedented role, spending a com-bined $7,478,538 on TV ads and topping the record set by such groups in 2004. Combined with the $2.9 million spent by state party orga-nizations, it was the first time that groups not affiliated with the official campaigns spent more on television than the candidates themselves. Groups and parties outspent the candidates in four states: Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Of the 21 contested races in which campaign ads were aired, candidates who benefited from more television advertising—including amounts spent by special interest groups and political parties on their behalf or against their opponents—won 70 percent of the time in 2008. That figure was up from 67 percent in 2006, though still shy of the 85 percent success rate in 2004. In the six races

where the candidate with less money spent on airtime went on to win, three of the winning candidates were incumbents who clearly ben-efited from name-recognition and an established reputation.10

2008 also saw less electoral success for candi-dates supported by pro-business and conservative groups than in 2006. In 2006 candidates sup-ported by pro-business and conservative groups won 71 percent of the time, whereas in 2008, candidates backed by such groups won only half their races. Candidates supported by progressive groups received less financial support and did not fare as well. Many candidates received no outside support from groups on either side.

Seven states set TV spending records in 2008: Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Texas and Wisconsin (an eighth state, Pennsylvania, set a new mark in 2007).11 For a comprehensive summary of ad airings and spending in all states in 2008, see chart on page 29.


Sponsors and Tone, 2008 High Court Election Ads

Special Interest

Political Party

Candidate

Special Interest

Political Party

Candidate

Special Interest

Political Party

Candidate

Attack Ads Contrast Ads Promote Ads



The April 2008 Supreme Court contest between incumbent Louis Butler and lower court judge Mike Gableman was the most expensive and hardest fought race of the season. While special interest groups were responsible for nearly 90 percent of all money spent on television ads in the state (over $3 million), the most controver-sial ad came from Judge Gableman himself.

In a spot that first aired March 14, a female voice, speaking over sinister background music, declared that Louis Butler worked to “put criminals on the street.” A recent image of Butler flashed across the screen—but the ad’s narrator named Reuben Lee Mitchell, the convicted rapist of an “11 year old girl with learning disabilities.” Quickly citing a later crime committed by Mitchell, the ad insinuated that Butler was responsible for letting Mitchell go free and molest another child. The final image on the screen shows Butler as a judge—visually reinforcing the impression that he freed Mitchell while on the bench.

The claim was misleading. During his career as a judge, Louis Butler never even heard a case involving Reuben Lee Mitchell. Instead, in 1987, as a court-appointed public defender, he represented Mitchell, asking for a new trial of a rape conviction because of a violation of criminal procedure in the original proceeding. The court of appeals agreed, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not, and the conviction stood.12 Mitchell served his prison sentence until 1992, when he was paroled. Three years after his release, Mitchell molested another girl. But Butler had nothing to do with Mitchell’s parole, either as an attorney or as a judge.

The ad also engaged in racial provocation. It showed Butler, Wisconsin’s only African American Supreme Court justice, alongside a photo of Mitchell, who is also black. The visual side-by-side dissolve and pairing—which caused a widespread outcry for its racial undertones—was capped by a suggestive closing message: “Can Wisconsin families feel safe with Louis Butler on the Supreme Court?” National orga-nizations including Factcheck.org compared the ads to the infamous Willie Horton ads—the

controversial, racially divisive ads run by a PAC supporting George H.W. Bush’s presidential cam-paign. In 1988, the Bush campaign took pains to distance itself from the Willie Horton ads. Two decades later, it was a judicial candidate’s own campaign that paid for, produced and aired the campaign’s most divisive ad.

Judge Gableman won by two percentage points and became the first challenger to beat a sit-ting Wisconsin justice in over 40 years. But the controversy did not end on Election Day. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission alleged that Gableman had violated the code of judicial conduct by running a false television ad against Butler, “made knowingly with reckless disregard for truth”—triggering a protracted inquiry that ended only when the Wisconsin Supreme Court deadlocked 3-3 on the charges.

Special interest groups also played a critical role in Butler’s defeat. Two groups, the Coalition for America’s Families and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, spent more than $1.6 million on TV ads. All of the Coalition for America’s Families ads included direct assaults on Butler. Eighty percent of the WMC ads were attacks, focusing almost exclusively on one of Butler’s past decisions as a judge involving criminal justice.

Justice Butler estimates that the total amount of money spent on the contest was closer to $10 million. “We know that [the reported] number [is] grossly underrepresented because none of it tracks the cable money. Unless you have the resources and unless you’re willing to go to out to the municipalities to track the cable spending one by one, you can’t get at those figures.”13

At a 2008 program in Washington, D.C., spon-sored by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to discuss the state of the judiciary, Butler used John Grisham’s writing to convey his plight. Holding up The Appeal, Grisham’s best-selling tale of a chemical company that spends heavily to tilt the Mississippi Supreme Court, Butler told the audience: “Welcome to my world.”14

State in Focus: Wisconsin

Election Victory at What Price to the Courts?


[Announcer]: Unbelievable. Shadowy spe-cial interests supporting Louis Butler are attacking Judge Michael

Gableman. It’s not true. Judge, District Attorney Michael Gableman

has committed his life to locking up crimi-nals to keep families safe, putting

child molesters behind bars for over 100 years. Louis Butler worked to put

Figure 21. Copyright 2008 TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG

criminals on the street, like Reuben Lee Mitchell who raped an 11-year-old girl

with learning disabilities. Butler found a loophole, Mitchell went on to molest

another child. Can Wisconsin families feel safe with Louis Butler on the Supreme Court?

[PFB]: GABLEMAN FOR SUPREME COURT

2008 Anti-Butler Ad Triggered Questions on Truth, Race

“Welcome to my world.”— Louis Butler, holding up John Grisham’s

novel The Appeal, after reality followed art and a high-cost campaign helped push Butler off the Wisconsin Supreme Court.


In ➜ Michigan and Nevada, spend-ing on television ads in 2008 dwarfed totals from the previous election cycle. Spending in Nevada was three times what it was in 2006, and eclipsed spending in the 2004 and 2006 election cycles combined. Increased spending on television ads was similarly dramatic in Michigan. The $3,638,651 spent there in 2008 represented a 450 percent increase in spending compared to 2006.

➜ Louisiana and Mississippi also saw sig-nificant swells in spending on TV ads. In 2004, $153,212 was spent on television advertisements in Louisiana.15 In 2008, spending exceeded $1 million. Totals in Mississippi doubled between the 2004 and 2008 election cycles, shooting from just over $600,000 in 2004 to nearly $1.3 million in 2008.

➜ Texas witnessed spending spikes in 2008 that made figures from previous election cycles in the state look minuscule. The more than $2 million spent on TV ads in the state in 2008 was five times what it was in 2002, the last year prior to 2008 in which the state saw TV ads in their Supreme Court contests.16

The majority of the most controversial and costly ad campaigns were sponsored by special interest groups and state party organizations.

In ➜ Mississippi, a Virginia-based group, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, accused incumbent Oliver Diaz, Jr. of “voting for” convicted kill-ers and rapists in three separate cases. Each accusation proved overwrought if not misleading. The state’s Special Committee on Judicial Election Campaign Intervention roundly denounced the ad, issuing a public state-ment on October 29. Some—though not all—television stations stopped running the ad. But the ad had aired for over a week before the Committee inter-vened. Diaz lost the election to lower-court judge Randy “Bubba” Pierce, who said he had nothing to do with the ads.

[Announcer]: The Sunday newspaper just reported

that insurance companies and bankers have bankrolled Greg Shaw’s

campaign with hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then there’s a million dollars

tied to gas and oil lobbyists from this building

near Washington, DC. So the choice is clear. Deborah Bell Paseur

is the only judge who sentenced criminals to jail. And Deborah can’t be bought.

[Deborah Bell Paseur]: “You honor me with your vote, I’ll serve you with honor.”

[PFB]: JUDGEDEBORAHBELL.COM


Alabama 2008: Ad Ties Candidate to Special Interests


In ➜ Michigan, the Democratic State Central Committee, capitalizing on President Bush’s dwindling popularity, ran ads linking Republican incumbent Cliff Taylor to the former President. One ad intoned: “George W. Bush and Clifford Taylor, political soldiers for the rich.” It went on to show clips of Bush endorsing Taylor. In another ad, the veracity of which has been widely ques-tioned, Democrats depicted Taylor as sleeping on the job (see “State in Focus: Michigan,” Page 30). Ads by the state Republican Party and state Chamber of Commerce branded Judge Diane Hathaway as a terrorist sympathizer, weak on crime and lazy.

In ➜ Alabama, the Virginia-based Center for Individual Freedom purchased more air time, an estimated $965,529 worth, than did the candidate it was sup-porting, Republican Greg Shaw, who spent an estimated $884,828. Together, the two narrowly outspent Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur, who lost by a close margin. While many CFIF ads were positive, Paseur lashed out at the group, claiming it was working as a front for the oil and gas industry.

In ➜ Wisconsin, the nation’s ugliest and most controversial ad of 2008 came from a judge. Mike Gableman’s racially tinged ads against sitting Justice Louis Butler triggered an ethics complaint against Gableman after he defeated Butler. (“See State in Focus: Wisconsin,” Page 32). But independent special inter-est groups accounted for 56 percent of all attack ads. One ad, run by the con-servative group Coalition for America’s Families, featured a dramatization of a “raped, beaten, and strangled co-ed,” adding that Justice Butler sought to let the attacker go free. The ad claimed that Butler sided with criminals “nearly 60 percent of the time.” Gableman’s integrity was attacked in ads aired by the Greater Wisconsin Committee, which suggested he was appointed to a judgeship as a payoff for a political contribution.

[Announcer]: Newspapers call Diane Hathaway, “[un]qualified,” for the Supreme Court.

Remember the low sentence Hathaway gave a sex predator

that targeted a minor? There’s more. Hathaway granted probation to a man who was arrested in camouflage paint

while carrying a loaded AK-47. His web page praised terrorists and declared his own personal Jihad.

Probation for a terrorist sympa-thizer? We’re at war with terrorists. Diane Hathaway, out of touch.

[PFB]: MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY


Michigan 2008: Challenger Assailed as Soft on Terrorism


$0

$1 Million

$2 Million

$3 Million

$4 Million

$5 Million

Wisconsin

Pennsylvania

20092007200520032001

2007: Supreme Court TV Spending in an Off YearOnly two states—Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—routinely hold Supreme Court elections in odd-numbered years. Spending in these elections typically has fallen short of other election states in the past decade. But in 2007, Pennsylvania’s high court election was more expensive than any in 2008, and spending on TV ads reflected that, at more than $4.5 million. While spend-ing in Wisconsin’s race between Michael Gableman and Louis Butler drew headlines in 2008, the state also reached unprec-edented heights for off-year elections in 2007. On TV ad airings alone, candidates and special interest groups combined to spend more than $2.1 million. Spending in off-year elections has generally not been significant enough to justify systematic tracking, but if 2007 is any indication for judicial elections, there may be fewer quiet years in the future.

The impact of 2007 spending is captured in one fact. While 2004 remains the single most expensive year for TV ad spending, 2007–08 set a new record as the costliest biennium. The estimated $26.6 million in ad buys in 2007–08 exceeds the $25.2 million recorded in 2003–04.

TV Spending, 2007 High Court Elections

State Candidate Group Party Total

Airings Cost Airings Cost Airings Cost Airings Cost

Pennsylvania 6,386 $3,500,454 1,048 $858,611 795 $196,131 8,229 $4,555,196

Wisconsin 3,392 $943,167 3,755 $1,165,019 0 $0 7,147 $2,108,186

Total 9,778 $4,443,621 4,803 $2,023,630 795 $196,131 15,376 $6,663,382

Figure 24. Data provided by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG.

TV Spending in Off-Year High Court Elections, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin



CHAPTER 2 NOTESIn prior “New Politics of Judicial Election” reports, 1. only even-year elections were monitored for Supreme Court TV ads. In response to the unusually costly 2007 elections in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, this report for the first time incorporates odd-year election data, dating back to 1999. The odd-year data have been added to decade TV totals, leading to revisions of earlier published estimates.

The estimated costs of airtime in this report are 2. drawn from television advertising data from the nation’s 100 largest media markets. The estimates were calculated and supplied by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG. The calculations do not include either ad agency commissions or the costs of produc-tion. The costs reported here therefore understate expenditures, and the estimates are useful principally for purposes of comparison within each state.

While odd-year election TV spending totals are 3. included for the first time in this report, because of the late arrival of some odd-year data, many specific analyses, such as the percentage of ads accounted for by non-candidate groups, are based only on 2008 and other even years.

Those states are 4. Alabama, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia. (No ads were run in the other two partisan states, Illinois, where the incumbent was not challenged, or New Mexico).

5. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce is a Wisconsin-based business issues advocacy group that includes large and small manufacturers, service companies, local chambers of commerce and special-ized trade associations. The group was responsible for more ad airings in the state than any other group or candidate in 2008, running 32 percent of all ads, and was the biggest spender on TV ads in the state. By the campaign’s end, their disclosed spending reached $1,296,842, making it the single biggest spender among special interest groups across the country in 2008. WMC also spent heavily 2007, to help elect Justice Annette Ziegler. Between the two elections, the group spent an estimated $2,054,292.

The 6. Greater Wisconsin Committee is a Wisconsin-based progressive political action committee that receives significant funding from organized labor and whose leadership has close ties to the office of Democratic Governor Jim Doyle. Including the 2007 election, GWC spent an estimated total of $1,430,807 on TV air time in 2007–08.

The 7. Center for Individual Freedom, a conservative PAC based in Virginia, works primarily on legal and legislative issues ranging from Supreme Court nominees to energy and tax policy reform. In addition to the 2008 Alabama race, CFIF spent an estimated $858,611 in the 2007 Pennsylvania election. That raised the group’s total to $1,824,140, making it the nation’s second biggest spender on Supreme Court ads in the 2007–08 biennium.

8. Michigan ranked sixth in total spending in 2006 among the ten states nationwide where there were contested Supreme Court elections.

Viveca Novak, “The Case of the Sleeping Judge,” 9. Factcheck.org (Nov. 26, 2008), available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_case_of_the_sleeping_justice.html.

These candidates were Joel Horton (10. Idaho), Lisabeth Hughes Abramson (Kentucky), and Phil Johnson (Texas). The name recognition of an incumbent is, of course, an advantage in campaigns for any office. But it is especially important in judicial races because of the so-called “voter roll off” that tends to plague elec-tions for judgeships. Voters who select presidential, gubernatorial, congressional and even local candidates often fail to vote for Supreme Court candidates. As a result, candidates generally rely on television ads to boost name recognition and visibility; having served a previous term, with the attendant status that provides, is thus an obvious advantage.

11. Wisconsin set TV ad records in both 2007 and 2008. For more on the Wisconsin/Pennsylvania 2007 elec-tions, see article on Page 36.

Writing for the majority, Justice 12. Shirley Abrahamson (now Chief Justice) granted that Butler’s argument had legal merit but she maintained that it did not change the basis of his conviction. “We can conclude,” she reasoned, “that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.”

Honorable 13. Louis Butler, Remarks at the Sandra Day O’Connor Conference on the State of the Judiciary, Panel: State Judicial Races – How Can Corporations Help Stop the Campaign Funding ‘Arms Race’?, (Oct. 2, 2008).

Id.14.

Prior to 2008, the last state Supreme Court elections 15. held in Louisiana were in 2006, when two incumbents ran unopposed.

Though 16. Texas held contested Supreme Court elec-tions in 2004 and 2006, no TV ads ran there during those years.

“The risk inherent in any non-publicly funded judicial election for this court is that the public may inaccurately perceive a justice as beholden to individuals or groups that contribute to his or her campaign.”

— Wisconsin’s seven Supreme Court justices, in a December 2007 letter appealing for public financing of court elections

Who has been working the hardest to change judicial politics and place their preferred candi-dates on the bench? A perfect map is impossible to draw, because inadequate disclosure laws make it so difficult to trace money to its roots, especially since all sides use conduit groups to mask the real sources of donations. But two conclusions can be drawn. First, for more than a decade, players on the political right have raised more money and won more court races. Second, it has been an asymmetrical battle, with con-servatives channeling money through national and sometimes state-based groups, while the left largely has organized at the state level, routing its biggest money from plaintiffs’ lawyers and unions through Democratic Party committees and independent groups.

One thing is clear: in America’s tort wars, both sides feel perpetually aggrieved, pointing to rul-ings they believe to be abusive and courts they are convinced are biased, and vowing to out-organize and outspend the other side.

One of the first players to successfully organize such efforts on a large scale is well-known: Karl Rove. In the late 1980s and early ’90s, Rove masterminded a turnaround that reversed the makeup of the Texas Supreme Court, from a Democratic body known for cozy relations with the plaintiffs’ bar to an all-Republican panel that took a hard line on injury and product liability cases. In the early 1990s, he was hired by the Business Council of Alabama to perform a simi-lar feat in that state.1 Both state courts eventually became overwhelmingly Republican, along with Louisiana’s.

In 2000, business and conservative groups began funding, and organizing, state Supreme Court races from a national stage, often with an invis-ible hand. Over the next eight years, plaintiffs’ lawyers and unions lost control of Supreme Courts in Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

Key players in the conservative coalitions have included leaders from such top companies as

CHAPTER 3

Who Played? Who Won?

Karl Rove was among the first to organize serious fundraising for judicial races.

[Roberts]: “He was adorable. Stevie had just turned three years old before he was

beaten and tortured to death. The Andress decision let my son’s killer

walk free after serving less than a third of his murder sentence. You could have a

convicted murderer released on the Andress decision next door

Figure 26. Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse waged a TV assault in Washington’s 2006 election, aided by funding from an arm of the National Association for Manufacturers.

Copyright 2006 TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG

Washington 2006: National Groups Finance Attack Ads in State Race


Home Depot, insurance giant AIG, Chrysler and big tobacco, and such leading business trade groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Intellectual support has been provided by a num-ber of state Federalist Society chapters. Political players included Bob Perry, a real estate mag-nate who financed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in 2004’s presidential election, and CRC Communications, the PR company that spearheaded the Swift Boat campaign.

Faced with an unprecedented spigot of money from Washington-based business and conserva-tive groups, the lawyers and unions have funneled money into state-level special interest groups and political party organizations, often masking the scale of their support (see “Focus on Alabama: Shell Game on the Left,” Pages 46–47)—and have gradually clawed back a little of their lost turf. (See chart, “Top Supreme Court Spenders, 2000–09 and 2007–08,” Page 40)

In Alabama, for instance, Deborah Bell Paseur, who narrowly lost to Republican Greg Shaw in 2008, got fully 61 percent of her money from the state Democratic Party, while in Michigan and Texas, state Democrats ran million-dollar TV ad campaigns. In each case, plaintiffs’ lawyers were believed to have played a key role in the funding.

The success of the business groups has recently slowed, possibly due in part to shifting public attitudes about party identification and the busi-ness sector. In 2006, a spinoff of the National

Association of Manufacturers failed to oust Georgia’s chief justice, while in Alabama, Sue Bell Cobb became chief justice, and the only Democrat, on the state’s Supreme Court. In 2007–08, chief justices were voted out in three states, in part because of perceived business and special interest ties. Trial lawyer and union money also played a key role as Democrats won two seats in Pennsylvania’s 2007 election, the nation’s costliest in the 2007–08 cycle. And even in Alabama and Texas, the two states where Rove pioneered the conservative remaking of state Supreme Courts, the margin of defeat for Democratic candidates was unexpectedly nar-row.

The closing gap makes a disturbing prognosis clear: With each side able to draw blood, and therefore hopeful that they can win if they just spend enough money, the odds of continuing super spender showdowns are greater than ever.

Nationalizing of Court Elections

It would be inaccurate to say the 2000–2009 period saw the first special interest spending on state Supreme Court elections. As far back as the late 1980s, national reports using the phrase “Justice for Sale” were run by Time magazine and “60 Minutes,” and focused on plaintiffs’ lawyers in Texas.2 In 2000, national and business media were reporting on how the business sector was fighting to shift the balance on state courts back from what many considered a pro-plaintiff bias.

and you wouldn’t even know it. If Justice Alexander hadn’t voted for this decision

this wouldn’t have happened. Judge Alexander is way out of touch with this issue.

I’m here supporting John Groen because John Groen is for victims and their families.”

[PFB]: Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse

* Chapter 3 notes are on page 54.

These groups took spending to unprecedented heights and for the first time nationalized state Supreme Court elections.

In a 2002 speech to the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue suggested a pre-cipitating event in explaining the Chamber’s state Supreme Court strategy.

“Flush with billions of dollars in fees from tobacco and asbestos litigation, a small group of class-action trial lawyers is hellbent on destroy-

ing other industries, and nobody is immune,” Donohue told the Illinois Chamber. “Our approach is simple—implement a multi-front strategy of challenging these unscrupulous trial lawyers every time they poke their head out of the ground. … On the political front, we’re going to get involved in key state Supreme Court and attorney general races as part of our effort to elect pro-legal reform judicial candidates. . . . We’re clearly engaged in hand-to-hand combat, and we’ve got to step it up if we’re going to survive.”3

Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus

$0

$5 Million

$10 Million

$15 Million

$20 Million

$25 Million

$30 Million

$35 Million

$40 Million

Plaintiffs' Lawyers/Unions/Liberals

Business/Conservative

2007–20082000–2009

$26,262,977

$11,912,300

$6,173,574

$6,175,226

Figure 27. In part reflecting their different strategies, business groups organized national campaigns and dominated the top 10 spender groups for the decade. But plaintiffs’ lawyers, unions and liberals, who orga-nized and raised funds at the state level, held their own among the nation’s highest-spending interest groups in 2007-08.

Top Supreme Court Spenders, 2000–09 and 2007–08

40 Who Played? Who Won?


“We’re going to get involved in key state supreme court and attorney general races as part of our effort to elect pro-legal reform judicial candidates. . . . We’re clearly engaged in hand-to-hand combat, and we’ve got to step it up if we’re going to survive.”

— Thomas Donohue, president of U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2002 speech

From the start, the Chamber campaign drew on some of America’s deepest pockets. According to a landmark 2003 Forbes article, Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus and Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman of the insurance giant AIG, contributed millions of dollars to the cause, and they remain vocal leaders in the anti-tort movement. Other early $1 million contribu-tors included Wal-Mart, DaimlerChrysler, and the American Council of Life Insurers.4

The spending in 2000 has never been fully accounted for because the Chamber spent much of its money through conduit groups. In 2005, successful disclosure litigation revealed that one Chamber-funded group, Citizens for a Strong Ohio, spent an estimated $4.4 million in ads. The Chamber’s Alabama affiliate, the Business Council of Alabama, poured $1.6 million into a then-record $13.1 million elec-tion. Mississippi’s attorney general said the Chamber spent $400,000 in ads there, while other estimates accounting for the full reach of the campaign ranged as high as $1 million. While the Chamber lost widely publicized races in Ohio and Mississippi, it swept all five seats in Alabama, and all but ran the table in 2002 and 2004 state Supreme Court elections.5

In 2005, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) took this sort of coor-dination a step further. NAM leader John Engler, previously the governor of Michigan, launched the American Justice Partnership. Other national players also began financing state Supreme Court races. The American Tort Reform Association and the Center for Individual Freedom have historic links to big

tobacco, while the Law Enforcement Alliance of America has received funding from the National Rifle Association—although the fund-ing of that group’s state court campaigns remains unclear.

Many of the groups have worked to conceal the original sources of their money, sometimes in protracted litigation, and documentation of financial backers is partial at best.

The Left: Organizing at the State Level

At the national level, competing groups such as plaintiffs’ lawyers, unions and the Democratic Party have failed to match their conservative and business-group opponents.

In 2007, a new national PAC, the Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee, was founded, but in its first two years, it failed to identify a national funding stream that would enable it to fight back against national groups on the right. The American Association of Justice, formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association, has primarily focused on federal elections.

Former AIG CEO Maurice Greenberg

Former Georgia governor Roy Barnes was on the board of the Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee.

Nonetheless, in 2007–08, the state-based groups were much more successful in holding their own financially, even when they ultimately lost elec-tions. In Michigan, the state Democrats spent an estimated $1.16 million on a series of TV ads lambasting then-Chief Justice Cliff Taylor, who was ousted by Democrat Diane Hathaway. In Wisconsin, the Greater Wisconsin Committee, a PAC whose leadership includes Kirk Brown, a former aide to Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, spent just under $1.2 million on TV air time. The committee nearly matched the TV spending of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, although the Democratic incumbent, Louis Butler, eventually lost.

In Mississippi, where the conviction of class-action lawyer Richard Scruggs plunged the plaintiffs’ bar into scandal, trial lawyers took a novel approach in 2008 to keep a low profile. The state trial lawyers group, the Mississippi Association for Justice, passed the hat after the election.6 Thus, newly elected Justice Jim Kitchens was able to retire $300,000 in debt he had incurred during his underdog campaign against incumbent Jim Smith—with help from the very lawyers and other interests who would appear before him in court.

And Alabama and Texas provided vivid examples of how plaintiffs’ lawyers can spend millions on preferred candidates without identifying them-selves, by the simple expedient of using political action committees to route money to state party organizations. (See “Focus on Alabama: Shell Game on the Left,” Pages 46–47.)

The National NetworksAmerican Justice Partnership

The national network on the right that has emerged around tort issues can be glimpsed in a group formed in 2005 by the National Association of Manufacturers: the American Justice Partnership. AJP was founded shortly after former Michigan Gov. John Engler took the helm at NAM, and its membership list con-tains many of the biggest state-level and national funders in judicial politics today.

Although AJP generally has worked through conduits, in 2006 it gave $300,000 to Oregon Supreme Court candidate Jack Roberts. It was also the primary financial backer of an interest-group campaign to unseat Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Carol Hunstein, writing $1.3 million in checks to the Safety and Prosperity Coalition. AJP also contributed $345,000 to Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse, at a time when that group was running a 2006 indepen-dent campaign backing John Groen and Stephen Johnson for Washington state Supreme Court. And in 2008 it donated $125,000 to the Business & Industry Political Action Committee’s cam-paign arm, for ads supporting then-Mississippi Chief Justice Jim Smith.7

AJP President Dan Pero has declared that AJP “receives no funds from NAM.” But there is lit-tle doubt whose efforts it seeks to support. Every documented check from the American Justice Partnership to candidates and independent cam-paigns lists its address as 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, in Washington, D.C.—the same address as the national headquarters of the National Association of Manufacturers.8

“With businesses and interest groups pouring more and more money into state judicial elections. . . the public can’t be faulted for concluding that donors are getting what they pay for, namely favorable treatment from judges who are supposed to be impartial.”

—Tony Mauro, USA Today opinion column



U.S. Chamber of Commerce Network

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has never issued a detailed listing of which races it played a financial role in, its involvement has been documented in campaigns in Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Mississippi and West Virginia. A 2003 Forbes article credited the Chamber with backing the winning candidate in 21 of 24 contested races in 2000 and 2002.

In 2008, the U.S. and Ohio Chambers account-ed for $624,260 of the $943,000 raised by the Partnership for Ohio’s Future,9 while state chambers spent heavily in Michigan and West Virginia. Mississippians for Economic Progress, a group that the Chamber has routed money through in the past, operated an indepen-dent campaign that spent an estimated $67,797 in TV ads in 2008, favoring then-Chief Justice Jim Smith. The American Taxpayers Alliance, which has financed independent campaigns in Alabama and Illinois, reported receiving $2.6 million in 2002 from the U.S. Chamber,10 mak-ing the Chamber its biggest financial contribu-tor that year. ATA spent heavily on ads backing now-Justice Rita Garman.

The Chamber lists Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Business Council of Alabama as its official state allies. WMC was the nation’s top super spender group in 2007–08 state Supreme Court races, while BCA, as the second highest contributor in Alabama during the 2000–2009 period, helped make that state’s Supreme Court elections the costliest in the nation.

The Chamber also established the Institute for Legal Reform, whose annual survey ranking states’ “litigation climate” is widely cited, and established three newspapers—in Texas, Illinois and West Virginia—that report heavily on tort-related issues. ILR has served as a funnel for get-ting Chamber money into state Supreme Court independent campaigns.

John Engler, presi-dent of the National Association of Manufacturers

The Long Reach of the American Justice PartnershipFounded by the National Association of Manufacturers in 2005, the American Justice Partnership lists 20 national part-ners and 42 state-level partners based in 21 states. It is formally partnered with at least 12 groups that have spent money on state Supreme Court elections, and financially supported campaign efforts by three other groups. In addition to being one of the nation’s top super spenders for 2000–09 state Supreme Court elec-tions, the AJP is formally allied with two members of the top 10 spenders for the 2000–09 decade. Two other partners, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Center for Individual Freedom, were top 10 spenders nationally in 2007–08 elections.

State Partners Business Council of Alabama

Illinois Chamber of Commerce


Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Mississippians for Economic Progress

Ohio Chamber of Commerce

Stop Lawsuit Abuse of Alabama

Texas Civil Justice League

West Virginia Chamber of Commerce


National PartnersAmerican Tort Reform Association


Campaigns Subsidized by AJPAmericans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse, Washington 2006

Safety and Prosperity Coalition, Georgia 2006

Business & Industry Political Education Committee, Mississippi 2008



The American Tort Reform Association was founded in the 1980s to coordinate national and state-level tort liability reform campaigns. Receiving a mix of funding from Fortune 500 companies and big tobacco (according to Philip Morris documents unearthed during tobacco industry litigation, major tobacco companies accounted for more than half of ATRA’s budget in 1995), the group has invested money in several major state Supreme Court elections.

In 2004, ATRA invested $765,000 into two races, in Illinois and Mississippi. In 2006, it contributed $503,000 to Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse, a Virginia group that in turn underwrote an independent campaign backing two business-backed candidates for Washington Supreme Court.11

The Secret Money Players: Center for Individual Freedom and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America

Two repeat players in state Supreme Court elec-tions have worked zealously to keep their money cloaked in mystery: the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. CFIF spent an estimated $858,611 in Pennsylvania in 2007, on an inde-pendent campaign supporting Maureen Lally-Green’s unsuccessful state Supreme Court cam-paign. In 2008, the Center bought an estimated $965,000 in air time in Alabama, supporting the successful campaign of Republican Greg Shaw.

CFIF has guarded the identities of its donors, suing two states, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, to challenge their election disclosure laws. But its

roots appear likely to be grounded in big tobacco. The group emerged in 1998, just as Philip Morris was publicly cutting off millions in funding for a mouthpiece organization, the National Smokers Alliance. W. Thomas Humber, head of the Alliance, was listed on the CFIF site as the latter group’s founder, and two other senior officers at the Smokers Alliance also took charge of CFIF. The Center for Individual Freedom didn’t even bother to switch buildings, operat-ing for years at the same Alexandria, Virginia, address as the Smokers Alliance. According to documents, in 1999 Humber actively sought tobacco industry financial backing on behalf of the fledgling CFIF.12

The Law Enforcement Alliance of America bought air time in Mississippi in 2002 and 2008, as well as Pennsylvania in 2001. One of its 2008 Mississippi ads, accusing then-Justice Oliver Diaz, Jr. of “voting for” killers and rap-ists in various cases, was pulled from the air by some stations after a state-run campaign conduct committee cried foul.13

Like many of the out-of-state groups running independent TV ads in state Supreme Court elections, LEAA is based in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. According to a Public Citizen project, called “Stealth PACs,”14 the group received significant funding from the National Rifle Association, but it is not clear whether the NRA has directly invested in state Supreme Court races.


The Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee was formed in 2007, but by the end of the 2008 election campaign had still not become a major financial player. Despite some support from unions, and from Fred Baron, a Texas plaintiffs’ lawyer, the group raised only


“The promise of America is broken if the public thinks that judges are captured by special interests, controlled by the wealthy and powerful.”

—“Justice in Jeopardy,” 2003 American Bar Association report


about $155,000 through the 2008 elections, and disbursed only about $21,000 in direct aid to campaigns in Wisconsin and Michigan.

The group’s goal is explicitly partisan, saying it is “the only organization whose primary mission is to elect Democratic judges to state courts.” The group’s board of advisers includes former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes; former Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager; former Washington Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn, who lost a 2004 bid for attorney general after the U.S. Chamber spent heavily on her opponent; Democratic pollster Celinda Lake; and Martin Frost, former Texas congressman.15

State-Level CoalitionsTexas Titans: Bob Perry and Fred Baron

During the past decade, Texas was home to two super spenders who have been leading players in state Supreme Court elections—and who have extended their influence beyond state lines, primarily for non-judicial politics.

Home builder Bob Perry has been a leading funder of two Texas PACs that ranked second and seventh in contributions to Texas Supreme Court candidates over the 2000–2009 peri-od: Texans for Lawsuit Reform and HillCo Partners, which accounted for a combined $429,045 in candidate contributions. One or both Perry-funded PACs were Top 5 donors to five of the six Texas justices elected in 2006 and 2008.16 (Until the Supreme Court’s 2010

Citizens United ruling, Texas imposed strict limits on corporate and PAC spending, and most members of the all-Republican state Supreme Court were backed prominently by corporate law firms—including Haynes & Boone, Fulbright & Jaworski, and Vinson & Elkins, former corporate counsel to Enron.)

Perry is best known for his role in financing the Swift Boat Veterans campaign against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign. The Federalist Society hired the public relations firm behind that campaign, CRC Communications, to work on judicial selection issues, including campaigns against merit selection in Missouri and Tennessee.17

On the other side, Texas Democrats chan-neled their big-money backing through state party PACs. In 2008, three poorly funded state Supreme Court candidates were bailed out by a $905,000 independent TV campaign by the Texas Democratic Party, helping all three to lose by respectably close margins. Two groups with competing agendas, Texans for Lawsuit Reform and the public-interest Texans for Public Justice, both identified the same source: plaintiffs’ lawyers, and specifically, Fred Baron, a Dallas lawyer who was an asbestos litigation pioneer. Baron gave more than $5 million to the Texas Democratic Trust, which in turn gave $2 million to the state Democratic Party in 2008. The two PACs were the two biggest spenders in Texas politics in 2008.18 Baron, who died in 2008, was also credited with spearheading a partisan challenge in which Democratic judges swept most Republicans from the local bench in Dallas, in 2006, and Houston in 2008.

Like Perry, Baron also was formidable on the national stage, heading finance operations for the 2004 John Kerry-John Edwards presidential campaign and running Edwards’ 2008 presiden-

The late Fred Baron, a Texas plaintiffs’ lawyer and contribu-tor to the Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee

“Not only does the law allow independent groups to operate like Swiss banks, it allows them to effectively to take the ‘r’ out of free speech.”— Mike McCabe, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign

Bob Perry, real estate magnate and financier of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth


Focus on Alabama: Shell Game on the LeftDid some state Democratic parties serve as conduits for plaintiffs’ lawyer money in 2007–08, allow-ing lawyers with court interests to funnel millions of dollars anonymously to state Supreme Court can-didates? An examination of the 2008 elections in Texas (See “Texas Titans,” page 45) and Alabama suggests that the answer is yes.

Without contributing a single dollar directly to Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur, the Montgomery law firm of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles funneled $606,000 to her treasury. Beasley Allen used an arcane maze of 30 political action committees, which eventually routed the money to the State Democratic Executive Committee. Other lawyers also contributed to the Democratic party, directly or through other PACs, accounting for virtually all of the $1.6 million that the state party donated to Paseur. That money represented 61 percent of the $2.7 million raised by Paseur, who lost narrowly to Republican Greg Shaw.19

Beasley Allen used this route more than any other backer, successfully obscuring the firm’s financial support for Paseur. A total of 52 checks, averaging $11,653, were written by six senior Beasley Allen partners: Jere Locke Beasley, Greg Allen, Thomas J. Methvin, J. Cole Portis, W. Daniel Miles III, and Andy D. Birchfield, Jr. The 30 PACs, mostly controlled by lobbyists John Teague or John D. Crawford, then wrote checks to one another, so that by the time final transfers arrived at the Democratic com-mittee, it was difficult, though not impossible, to trace the original source of the money.

Beasley Allen is a plaintiffs’ law firm, which has handled significant cases before the Alabama Supreme Court. According to its web site, the firm has won multi-billion-dollar lawsuits, including a $3.6 billion judgment against Exxon Corp. that was largely reversed by the state high court.

While Paseur was covertly receiving more than $600,000 from one law firm, she publicly accused her Republican opponent of ethical conflicts, saying he was beholden to the energy industry. In campaign ads, Paseur boasted that she “can’t be bought.”

Without contributing a single dollar directly to Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur, the Montgomery law firm of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles funneled $606,000 to her treasury.


Beasley-Allen

, A PAC, AID PAC, BIP PAC, CGR PAC, COM pac, GA PAC, Group PAC, High St. PAC, I&C PAC, Poll PAC, RACE PAC, Resolution PAC, Speed PAC, Step PAC, SUN PAC, Supply PAC, T PAC, Watch PAC, Brother

, Alabez, EcoDev, Enviro, Franklin, Green, Growth, JDC PAC, Jefferson PAC, Vision PAC, st Century

, Eagle PAC

, To State Democrats

Direct to Deborah Bell Paseur

Total contributedto John Teague PACs,

Total contributedto John D. Crawford PACs,

,

Eventually received

by Paseur, via conduits.

AlabamaDemocraticParty

DeborahBell Paseur

PACs Used by Beasley Allen to Mask High Court Donations

Figure 28.

tial bid. Baron was one of the few major national donors to the Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee, whose goal was to offer national financial support to state Supreme Court candi-dates. Baron gave $10,000 to the DJCC.

Michigan/Wisconsin: What’s Behind the Curtain?

In two of the Midwest’s costliest states in 2007–08, Michigan and Wisconsin, the real money was largely undisclosed. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign estimated that indepen-dent campaigns accounted for 90 percent of TV ad costs in the 2008 Michael Gableman-Louis Butler race, and 80 percent of all spending in the election campaign.

In Michigan, three independent TV cam-paigns—run by the Michigan Democratic Committee, the Michigan Republican Party and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce—accounted for two-thirds of all TV spending. The estimated $2.4 million spent by the groups

nearly equaled the $2.6 million raised by candi-dates Cliff Taylor and Diane Hathaway.

Both states had one thing in common: campaign disclosure laws and court rulings that allowed independent groups to advertise with impunity while concealing their funding sources.

Although Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce is affiliated with both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, while the Greater Wisconsin Committee clearly had Democratic leadership and the support of plain-tiffs’ lawyers and unions, it was difficult to know their original money sources, or those for cam-paigns run by the out-of-state Club for Growth and Coalition for America’s Families.

In an opinion column, Mike McCabe, exec-utive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said all the groups had operated as a pass-through for secret money, making a shambles out of any public transparency: “Not only does [the law] allow them to operate like Swiss banks,” McCabe wrote, “it allows them to effectively take the ‘r’ out of free speech.”20

“A fundamental principle of our democracy is that judges must be perceived as beyond price. When litigants go to court, they want a judge who will decide the case based on the facts and the law. They do not want the umpire calling balls and strikes before the game has begun.”

— Ann Walsh Bradley, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice



Georgia: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow

As recently as 2005, there was no Safety and Prosperity Coalition in Georgia, and by 2007, the group had all but evaporated, with records showing virtually no contributions or operating funds.

But during the Georgia Supreme Court election of 2006, the Safety and Prosperity Coalition was practically unrivaled in size or stature. Aided by national groups, it swiftly raised $1.8 million, unleashing a harsh television assault against Chief Justice Carol Hunstein.

The Coalition was formed in January 2006 by Eric Dial, development director for an American Justice Partnership ally, the Southeastern Legal Foundation. It raised $300,000 in contributions from corporations including DaimlerChrysler, Coca-Cola Bottlers, the American Insurance Association, and the Georgia Hospital Association.

The Michigan-based American Justice Partnership then cut checks totaling $1.3 mil-

lion, reporting its address as the National Association of Manufacturers’ D.C. headquar-ters. The AJP money constituted the heart of the Safety and Prosperity Coalition’s $1.7 million funding. In spite of the significant spending against her, Hunstein defeated challenger Mike Wiggins.21

Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Carol Hunstein withstood a severe 2006 challenge that was funded heavily by the American Justice Partnership.

“There is no system for selecting judges that will guarantee a judge’s character. . . . But we can reduce the perception that money and politics matter more than merit and performance.”

—The late Thomas Moyer, Ohio Chief Justice

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?LAWYERS

UNIONS


MEDICAL INDUSTRY





IMPAC Fund



Howard Rich

Michigan Democrats















The Battle for America’s Courts, 2000-2009

Ballot Measures & Merit Selection In addition to state Supreme Court elections, opponents have battled over merit selection appointment systems, and over ballot measures to change rules governing courts. Among the most notable:

The 2006 “Jail 4 Judges” initiative in South Dakota

The 2006 term limits initiative in Colorado

Ongoing efforts to eliminate merit selection in Missouri

Local fights over merit in Greene County, Mo., and Johnson County, KS

A legislative attempt to scrap merit selection in Tennessee

Key Players

Federalist Society & state chapters


ShowMe Better Courts (Missouri)

Kansas Judicial Review

J.A.I.L. 4 Judges

Limit the Judges, Colorado

Howard Rich, developer

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?LAWYERS

UNIONS


MEDICAL INDUSTRY





IMPAC Fund



Howard Rich

Michigan Democrats
















The LeftPlaintiffs’ lawyers and unions formed one key side in the battle for America’s courts that reached full force in 2000-2009. Their primary goals were to elect judges sympathetic to them on tort-reform and product liability issues.

Unlike their conservative counterparts, these groups generally organized and raised funds at the state level. One national group, the Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee based in Washington, D.C., failed to play a major financial role. Especially in Alabama, Illinois and Texas, lawyers contributed cash through the Democratic Party to mask their support of candidates.

While the lawyers and unions spent millions on swing elections, they lost ground in several key states early in the decade, notably including Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, after previously losing control of courts in Texas and Louisiana. Plaintiffs’ lawyers regained the upper hand in Michigan in 2008, in a year that signaled a possible broader come-back.

Key Players



Michigan Democratic Party

Alabama Democrats/plaintiffs’ lawyers

Illinois Democrats/plaintiffs’ lawyers

Texas Democrats/plaintiffs’ lawyers


The late Fred Baron

The Battle for America’s Courts

The New Politics of Judicial Elections: 2000–2009 51Figure 38.

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?LAWYERS

UNIONS


MEDICAL INDUSTRY





IMPAC Fund



Howard Rich

Michigan Democrats















The Battle for America’s Courts, 2000-2009

Ballot Measures & Merit Selection In addition to state Supreme Court elections, opponents have battled over merit selection appointment systems, and over ballot measures to change rules governing courts. Among the most notable:

The 2006 “Jail 4 Judges” initiative in South Dakota

The 2006 term limits initiative in Colorado

Ongoing efforts to eliminate merit selection in Missouri

Local fights over merit in Greene County, Mo., and Johnson County, KS

A legislative attempt to scrap merit selection in Tennessee

Key Players

Federalist Society & state chapters


ShowMe Better Courts (Missouri)

Kansas Judicial Review

J.A.I.L. 4 Judges

Limit the Judges, Colorado

Howard Rich, developer

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?

FUNDING SOURCE

UNKNOWN

?LAWYERS

UNIONS


MEDICAL INDUSTRY





IMPAC Fund



Howard Rich

Michigan Democrats















The RightBusiness groups and other conservative organizations organized nationally as the decade started, hoping to reverse what they perceived as excess influence on elected courts by the plaintiff bar.

At least eight national groups, many based in or near Washington, D.C., have spent directly or indirectly on state Supreme Court elections. While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce worked largely through its state chapters, the National Association of Manufacturers created a Michigan-based spinoff, the American Justice Partnership, to coordinate campaign efforts. Two national spend-ers, the Center for Individual Freedom and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, have historic ties to big tobacco and the gun lobby, respectively, but their financial backing for specific court election campaigns remains unknown.

The national strategy proved highly effective, winning control of numerous state courts before suffering a par-tial reversal in 2008, when three business-backed chief justices were voted out of office.

Key Players

U.S. Chamber of Commerce/State Chapters

American Justice Partnership/National Association of Manufacturers




American Taxpayers Alliance

Club for Growth

Pennsylvania State Republicans


The Battle for America’s Courts

“Acknowledging that judicial elections are here to stay does not mean we have to accept spectacularly dysfunctional electoral systems like the one on display in West Virginia. If a state plans to embrace judicial elections, it should shield judges from having to collect campaign donations from the very groups that appear before them.”

— Amanda Frost, American University law professor

“Now as never before, reinvigorating recusal is truly necessary to preserve the court system that Chief Justice Rehnquist called the ‘crown jewel’ of our American experiment.”

— Thomas R. Phillips, Retired Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Texas, in “Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards” (Brennan Center)

“The temptations of corporate cash mean that in those states where judicial elections still prevail there hangs a crooked sign on every courthouse reading, ‘Justice for Sale.’”

—Bill Moyers, journalist


“I’ve been around West Virginia long enough to know that politicians don’t stay bought.”

—Don Blankenship, New York Times interview

Quotes from the Decade

“I am extremely proud of what Caperton v. Massey has accomplished in just a short period of time. The decision by the Court is leading to sweeping changes across the country in judicial elections and rules for recusal that will protect citizens from big money campaign donors. Over time, these reforms will lead to fairer courts and help restore faith in our judicial system. For the families of Harman Mining, however, the pursuit of justice remains an ongoing battle.”

— Hugh Caperton, litigant in Caperton v. Massey

Michigan’s new recusal rule “permits a justice’s recusal where that justice is unable to render an unbiased decision and unable or unwilling to acknowledge that fact. The justice system and this Court can only be stronger for it.”

—Michigan Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly

“We had a 10-year plan to take all this down. . . And if we do it right, I think we can pretty well dismantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law.”

— Lawyer James Bopp, after Citizens United ruling

“It’s a rotten system, Wes.”

“How do you fix it?”

“Either take away the private money and finance the races with public funds or switch to appointments.”

— John Grisham, The Appeal

CHAPTER 3 NOTESJoshua Green, “1. Karl Rove in a Corner,” Atlantic, November 2004, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green.

Richard Woodbury, “Is Justice for Sale?” Time maga-2. zine, Jan. 11, 1988, available at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966426,00.html. “60 Minutes” report is cited by multiple sources, includ-ing http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/interviews/hill.html.

3. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue, March 11, 2002, speech to Illinois Chamber of Commerce, available at: http://www.uschamber.com/press/speeches/2002/020311tjd_illinois.htm.

Robert Lenzner and Matthew Miller, “Buying 4. Justice,” Forbes.com, July 21, 2003, available at http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0721/064_print.html.

The 5. U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s state court cam-paign received broad attention in the mainstream and business media. Details on the Chamber campaign and its electoral successes are drawn from the 2003 Forbes article, and from articles that include the following: William Glaberson, “U.S. Chamber Will Promote Business Views in Court Races,” New York Times, October 22, 2000; Jim VandeHei, “Political Cover: Major Business Lobby Wins Back Its Clout By Dispensing Favors–Some Members Can Hide Behind Chamber’s Name To Pursue Private Ends–Targeting `Unfriendly’ Judges,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 2001; “Battle Over the Courts,” Business Week, Sept. 27, 2004.

“Lawyers asked to help judge clear debt,” Jackson 6. Clarion-Ledger, Dec. 16, 2008. See also commentary in “Choose Judges on Merit” blog, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, at http://judgesonmerit.org/tag/jim-kitchens/.

7. Oregon 2006 contribution is available at www.fol-lowthemoney.org. Georgia expenditure available at Georgia State Ethics Commission, http://ethics.geor-gia.gov/Reports/Campaign/Campaign_ByName.aspx; contribution to Americans Tired of Lawuit Abuse at, http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/americans_tired_of_lawsuit_abuse.asp; donation to Improve Mississippi PAC (IMPAC), Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office, http://www.sos.state.ms.us/PDF-Out/000000059296.pdf

See expenditure filings cited in previous footnote. 8.

Secretary of State data, compiled by Public Citizen, 9. at http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=15877.

Rachel Paine Caufield, 10. American Judicature Society, “Judges Under Attack, 2005 paper for Iowa Judges’Conference, http://www.ajs.org/selection/docs/caufield_ia_judges_conference.pdf.

Spending by ATRA and the Institute for Legal 11. Reform is documented in “Fringe Tactics,” a 2005 report by Rachel Weiss for the National Institute on Money in State Politics (http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200508251.pdf). ATRA’s contri-bution to Americans Tired of Lawuit Abuse is at

campaignmoney.com, http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/americans_tired_of_lawsuit_abuse.asp. ATRA also issued a statement after the 2002 election, claiming “key judicial election victories for civil justice reform” in Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington state (Liability and Insurance Weekly, Nov. 12, 2002, http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/insurance-carriers-related/404858-1.html).

In a July 16, 1999, letter on 12. National Smokers Alliance letterhead, NSA president Humber sought funding from Lorillard Tobacco Co. and mentioned “a devel-opment project, the Center for Individual Freedom, which might be of some interest to Lorillard’s parent or associated companies” (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lwd62d00/pdf). A 2002 motion in federal court in Pennsylvania listed the Center for Individual Freedom’s address as 901 N. Washington St., Alexandria, Va., same as the Smokers Alliance (http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/us_supreme_court/checkoff_motion.pdf). CFIF later moved. Humber, Eric Schippers and David Nummy were early leaders of CFIF, and had leadership roles in the smokers alliance.

“Mud Flies, Spending Soars in 13. Mississippi,” Gavel Grab, Oct. 30, 2008, http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=670. See also, “Mississippi Muck,” part of a Nov. 26, 2008, www.factcheck.org report on the Michigan and Mississippi Supreme Court campaigns.

14. www.stealthpacs.org, Public Citizen project to list financial resources of advocacy groups.

The 15. Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee web site (www.djcc.org) contains a national map, analyz-ing each elected court’s political makeup.

Data for this calculation are drawn from the National 16. Institute on Money in State Politics, www.followthe-money.org.

See “Swift-Boating the Courts: Missouri Edition,” 17. Gavel Grab, June 11, 2008 (www.gavelgrab.org/?p=330), and “Tennessee Poll Leaves Out Key Question to Get Desired Answer,” Gavel Grab, Feb. 27, 2008 (http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=192).

18. Texans for Public Justice report on 2008 campaign spending is at http://info.tpj.org/reports/txpac08/chapter2.html. Texans for Lawsuit Reform report is at http://www.tlrpac.com/news-08-1121.php.

Alabama Secretary of State’s Office, 2008 campaign 19. finance reports. Information is derived by examining reports of political action committees that eventu-ally wrote checks to the State Democratic Executive Committee.

Mike McCabe, “A Traffic Jam on the Low Road of 20. Politics,” BizTimes.com, Oct. 22, 2008, http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2008/10/22/a-traffic-jam-on-the-low-road-of-politics.

21. Safety and Prosperity Coalition financial informa-tion is available at Georgia State Ethics Commission, http://ethics.georgia.gov/Reports/Campaign/Campaign_ByName.aspx.


CHAPTER 4

Litigation: The Battle Inside the CourtroomSome of the most significant developments affecting state judicial elections have occurred in federal court, where increasingly thorny ques-tions of judicial independence and conduct on the campaign trail have gone for resolution. The past decade has seen important U.S. Supreme Court cases involving how judges can cam-paign, when campaign spending should trigger a judge’s recusal, and whether corporations and unions can pour their treasuries directly into election campaigns. Much of this litigation has been generated by interest groups as a new front in their efforts to strengthen or erode rules designed to insulate court decisions from special-interest campaign pressure.

Caperton v. Massey: When Judges Must Step Aside

Caperton v. Massey, decided in June 2009, pro-vided a national lesson in what can go wrong

when big money supporters and pending l it igat ion

coincide in the courtroom. Caperton has moved recusal—when a judge steps aside from a case to prevent ethical conflict—to the national stage. And it has created incentives for every state to make sure that their recusal procedures have not been rendered ineffective by the new politics of judicial elections.

The case involved the campaign of Brent D. Benjamin, a lawyer who in 2004 ran for a seat on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals against incumbent Warren McGraw. The cam-paign became notorious nationwide for its bitter tone, no-holds-barred attacks, and extraordi-narily high spending. Especially noteworthy were the circumstances surrounding Benjamin’s principal financial supporter, Don Blankenship. At the time, Blankenship, CEO of Massey Coal Co., was embroiled in a lawsuit with Harman Mining Corp., and Massey stood to lose $50 mil-lion in damages after a jury found Massey liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and tortious interference with existing contractual relations. As post-verdict motions were under consider-ation, it became clear that the case was bound

for the state Supreme Court of Appeals

West Virginia Justice Brent D. Benjamin was at the heart of the landmark Caperton v. Massey case.

Figure 30.


56 Litigation: The Battle Inside the Courtroom

—just as the Benjamin-McGraw campaign was heating up.

Blankenship went on to spend $3 million of his personal funds to support Benjamin’s cam-paign, both by promoting Benjamin and attack-ing his opponent. That included $2.5 million Blankenship contributed to a 527 group called And For the Sake of the Kids, whose purported mission was to defeat Warren McGraw, and $500,000 Blankenship spent independently. The $3 million spent by Blankenship was three times the amount spent by Benjamin’s own campaign. Benjamin went on to defeat McGraw by a mar-

gin of 53-47 percent. More than 60 percent of Benjamin’s total campaign support came from Blankenship’s pockets.

When the case came before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals almost two years later, Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself. He cast the deciding vote in a 3-2 decision in favor of Blankenship’s company, reversing the damages awarded to Harman Mining. Articles and op-eds across the country likened the sce-nario to a plot out of a John Grisham novel, and indeed, Grisham cited West Virginia as an inspiration for his Mississippi-based novel “The Appeal.” What’s more, West Virginians were skeptical that Justice Benjamin—in spite of his protestations to the contrary—could appear unbiased in hearing the case. According to a 2008 survey, over 67% of West Virginians doubted that Justice Benjamin would be fair and impartial in considering the case before him, even if he claimed otherwise.1

Hugh Caperton, owner of Harman Mining, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he was represented by Theodore B. Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States under George W. Bush. “The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial

Who Decides What Is Fair and Impartial?In a March 3, 2009, hearing, lawyers for Caperton and Massey offered U.S. Supreme Court justices two starkly different standards for deciding whether a judge might have to avoid a case involving a major campaign supporter.

“If you were in Justice Benjamin’s situation, do you really think you would be incapable of rendering an impartial decision in a case involving Massey? Because if the answer to that is no. . . then there’s no justification for saying that Justice Benjamin would.”

—Andrew Frey, representing Massey Coal Co.

A photo of West Virginia Chief Justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard (left), on vacation in the Riviera with coal executive Don Blankenship, con-tributed to Maynard’s 2008 election defeat.

“Would a detached observer conclude that a fair and impartial hearing would be possible? So instead of the question that Mr. Frey was asking. . . I would like to ask you to ask this question: If this was going to be the judge in your case, would you think it would be fair, and would it be a fair tribunal, if the judge in your case was selected with a $3 million subsidy by your opponent?”

—Theodore B. Olson, representing Hugh Caperton


An Earlier Case of Election Bias?Several years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Caperton v. Massey, the high court declined to hear a case that raised similar issues of potential bias by an elected judge.

Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. involved the most expensive state judicial campaign in United States history, a 2004 contest in which Illinois Appellate Judge Gordon Maag and then-circuit Judge Lloyd Karmeier raised a total of $9.3 mil-lion. Karmeier, who received over $350,000 in direct contributions from employees, lawyers and others linked to State Farm Insurance, and over $1 million more from groups of which State Farm was a member or to which it contributed, won the election.

Justice Karmeier then refused to recuse himself from Avery, which, as the timeline illustrates, was pending before the Illinois Supreme Court during the entire campaign. The stakes in Avery were hardly trivial. Justice Karmeier cast the decisive vote to reverse a verdict on breach of claims valued at over $450 million against State Farm.

2003 2006

Avery case not decided and left pending before Supreme Court during entire 2004 Campaign.

May, 2003 Oral Argument in Avery heard in the Illinois Supreme Court

2004 Illinois Supreme Court Campaign.

Big Money Flows In

November, 2004Karmeier wins: Karmeier calls funding “obscene,” yet declines to recuse from Avery

August. 2005Karmeier casts deciding vote in Avery, overturning $450 Million+ judgment against State Farm.

March, 2006U.S. Supreme Court denies cert in Avery

Over $4 Million in total contributions to Karmeier.

Chronology Of Avery v. State Farm Controversy

“It cost just over $9 million for that race. As you might have guessed, the winner of that race got his biggest contributions from a company that had an appeal pending before the Illinois Supreme Court. You like that?”

— Sandra Day O’Connor , U.S. Supreme Court Justice

“The juxtaposition of gigantic campaign contributions and favorable judgments for contributors creates a haze of suspicion over the highest court in Illinois. . . . Although Mr. Karmeier is an intelligent and no doubt honest man, the manner of his election will cast doubt over every vote he casts in a business case.”

—St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial

Figure 31.


The Caperton Coalition: Diverse Groups Rally to Defend Impartial JusticeA striking aspect of the Caperton v. Massey recusal case was the exceptionally broad range of groups—including businesses, retired justices, and civic and legal organizations—urging that a West Virginia justice not hear a case involving his biggest campaign benefactor.

After the ruling, a New York Times editorial noted, “The only truly alarming thing about Monday’s decision was that it was not unanimous. The case drew an unusual array of friend-of-court briefs from across the political spectrum, and such an extreme case about an ethical matter that should transcend ideology should have united all nine justices.”

Among the notable briefs:

“ Essential to public confidence in the judiciary is the assurance that justice is not for sale and that legal disputes will be resolved by fair and impartial judicial

officers. [Justice Benjamin’s refusal to recuse] created an appearance of bias that would diminish the integrity of the judicial process in the eyes of any reasonable person.”— The Committee for Economic Development, Intel Corp., Lockheed Martin Corp.,

Pepsico, Wal-Mart Stores, and Transparency International USA

“ The integrity of the judicial process requires that judges avoid both actual bias and the reasonable appearance of bias. … Few actions jeopardize public trust in the judicial process more than a judge’s failure to recuse in a case brought by or against a substantial contributor.”

—American Bar Association

“ All amici view with alarm the increasing expense of mounting a serious campaign for election to a state supreme court, and with even greater alarm the increasing level of independent expenditures in these elections. . . . Substantial financial support of a judicial candidate—whether contributions to the judge’s campaign committee or independent expenditures—can influence a judge’s future decisions, both consciously and unconsciously.”

— 27 former state Supreme Court Chief Justices and Justices


“ The escalation of judicial campaign spending traps business leaders into a classic ‘prisoner’s dilemma.’ . . . A corporation must consider the likelihood that its opponent in high-stakes litigation may actively support one or more of the judges that will hear its case. Mandatory recusal is necessary to stanch this campaign spending arms race and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.”

— The Center for Political Accountability and Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School

“The $3 million in expenditures; the fact that those expenditures represented more than all other financial support for Justice Benjamin combined; the sole interested source of those funds; the timing of the expenditures; and the other facts of this case are so egregious—by today’s standards at least—that they offer the Court the ideal opportunity to reinforce one of the most fundamental rights in any system based on the rule of law: the right to a fair hearing before an impartial arbiter.”—Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Reform Institute

“Judicial elections have created a crisis of confidence. National surveys from 2001 and 2004 found that over 70% of Americans believe that campaign contributions have at least some influence on judges’ decisions in the courtroom.”—Justice at Stake Campaign (in a brief including 27 civic reform groups)2

Other briefs urging recusal were submitted by: the American Association for Justice; the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Conference of Chief Justices: An Influential Brief

One of the most significant briefs was submitted by the Conference of Chief Justices. While not formally taking sides in the case,

the body of chief justices in every state and U.S. territory made clear its concerns about runaway spending in state court elec-

tions. The Conference, whose brief was mentioned 10 times during Supreme Court arguments, said:

“ Under certain circumstances, the Constitution may require the

disqualification of a judge. . . because of extraordinarily out-of-line

campaign support.”

The state chief justices added:

“Some may claim that allowing any due process challenge to an elective

judge because of campaign support might open the floodgates for

thousands of constitutional disqualification challenges. . . Such a fear, the

Conference submits, is unfounded.”


system today,” said Olson. “A line needs to be drawn somewhere to prevent a judge from hearing cases involving a person who has made massive campaign contributions to benefit the judge.”3

As the Brennan Center for Justice wrote in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court: “The $3 mil-lion in expenditures; the fact that those expen-ditures represented more than all other financial support for Justice Benjamin combined; the sole interested source of those funds; the timing of the expenditures; and the other facts of this case are so egregious—by today’s standards at least—that they offer the Court the ideal opportunity to reinforce one of the most fundamental rights in any system based on the rule of law: the right to a fair hearing before an impartial arbiter.”4

A broad coalition of strange bedfellows agreed (see: “The Caperton Coalition,” Pages 58 and 59). Most notably, the Conference of Chief Justices, which includes the chief justice of every state and U.S. territory, filed its own amicus brief. Consistent with the Conference’s policy, the brief did not formally support either party, but its contents made clear that on the fundamental question of law, the Conference supported the legal arguments advanced by Caperton: “under certain circumstances, the Constitution may require the disqualification of a judge in a particular matter because of extraordinarily out-of-line campaign support from a source that has a substantial stake in the proceedings.”5

On June 8, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling. In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the court concluded that, given the “serious risk of actual bias,” the Constitution’s

Due Process Clause required the recusal of Justice Benjamin, calling the facts of the case “extreme by any measure.” The Court reached its conclusion that Blankenship had a “signifi-cant and disproportionate influence” in Justice Benjamin’s placement on the court, based upon the total amount of money Blankenship spent on the election, its size compared to the total amount spent on the election, and the effect such expenditures seemed to have on the elec-tion’s outcome.6

The timing of the expenditures was also a cru-cial factor in the decision. According to Justice Kennedy, “[I]t was reasonably foreseeable, when the campaign contributions were made, that the pending case would be before the newly elected justice.”7 There was no claim of quid pro quo collusion between Blankenship and Justice Benjamin, but the contributions nonetheless constituted a “serious, objective risk of actual bias” that required recusal, both because of their timing and relative size.

Although four justices dissented, no one on the Court disputed that states can enact disquali-fication standards even more rigorous than the Constitution’s due process requirements. “States are, of course, free to adopt broader recusal rules than the Constitution requires,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, “and every State has.” Indeed, former Texas Chief Justice Thomas Phillips argues that the most important issue in the case was the Court’s first-ever acknowledg-ment that even lawful contributions made to the campaign of a judge could warrant his or her recusal, if such support was “so substantial and overwhelming” as to raise due process concerns.8

“ Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when—without the other parties’ consent—a man chooses the judge in his own cause.”

—Caperton v. Massey opinion, authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy


A variety of post–Caperton reforms are available, including empaneling neutral judges to hear recusal motions against a particular judge, creat-ing per se rules for disqualification, and enhanc-ing disclosure requirements for judges as well as litigants. Americans agree that reform is needed: A 2009 Justice at Stake poll showed that more than 80 percent of all voters support the idea of a different judge deciding on recusal requests, and agree that judges should not hear cases involving major campaign backers.9

In November 2009, Michigan’s Supreme Court became the nation’s first high court to adopt new recusal rules, after Caperton, that allow the entire court to review recusal motions, and dis-qualify individual justices from cases that pose possible ethics violations.

Judicial Speech: How Far Can Candidates Go?

Another decision that is reshaping the rules around judicial elections is the 2002 Supreme Court ruling in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, holding that judicial candidates cannot be barred from announcing their positions on political issues. Since White, federal courts have divided on what other judicial campaign speech regulations conform with the First Amendment. ABA President Robert Hirshon predicted White would “open Pandora’s box.”

White has fueled a boom in additional litiga-tion seeking to loosen restrictions on judicial campaign speech, though federal courts remain split on how far candidates can go. For example,

in Weaver v. Bonner (2002), the 11th Circuit struck down a prohibition on Georgia judi-cial candidates personally soliciting campaign contributions, and a prohibition on false or misleading campaign speech. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s clear statement in White that it “neither assert[ed] nor impl[ied] that the First Amendment requires campaigns for judicial office to sound the same as those for legisla-tive office,”10 the 11th Circuit asserted “that the Supreme Court’s decision in White suggests that the standard for [First Amendment review of] judicial elections should be the same as the standard for legislative and executive elections.”11 Similarly a federal district court in Wisconsin overturned in Siefert v. Alexander (2009) a rule barring judges, candidates for judicial office and judges-elect from belonging to a political party.12

Other courts, however, have not agreed with post-White challenges to judicial canons, or have upheld canons that were revised or adopted to achieve a more finely tuned balance between free speech and due process rights. (A revised Model Code of Judicial Conduct adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in 2007 included numerous changes made in light of White, and 15 states had adopted these restrictions on speech by judges and judicial candidates as of July 2009.)

In Indiana, for example, a federal court at first enjoined enforcement of a disputed judicial rule restricting partisan activity. After the state’s Supreme Court adopted a new, narrower ver-sion, the court vacated its injunction in the case, Bauer v. Shepard (2009). The same federal court rejected a legal attack on judicial conduct rules restricting partisan political activities, including

“ We neither assert nor imply that the First Amendment requires campaigns for judicial office to sound the same as those for legislative office.”

— Republican Party of Minnesota v. White opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia


one that bars a judge or judicial candidate from holding office in a political organization or act-ing as a leader in it.

As formal rules fall, professional norms of conduct have become more important. In 2008, the Justice at Stake Campaign and the Midwest Democracy Network recommended a set of guidelines13 to help judicial candidates steer clear of special interest pressures and political agen-das. It includes recommendations that judicial candidates:

Use election campaigns as an opportu- ➜

nity to educate the public about how courts work, how they protect civil liberties, and where they fit in the Constitution’s system of checks and bal-ances.

Avoid expressing views—in public and ➜

in interest group questionnaires—on issues they might rule on. Candidates should use their responses to explain why stating one’s views on controversial issues is both inappropriate and damag-ing to public belief in impartial justice. Elected judges should be ready to recuse themselves from cases involving issues they do publicly discuss.

Limit how much money they will take ➜

from a single source or category of contributor—and never make promises “explicit or implied,” that from the bench, cases will be decided in a par-ticular way.

Promote civil campaigns by disassociat- ➜

ing themselves from groups that make misleading statements about an oppo-nent, and by working with campaign conduct committees to ensure clean campaigns.

Campaign Finance Returns to the High Court

Money may be endemic to politics, but special-interest money poses a unique threat to courts, which unlike legislators and governors have a constitutional obligation to be impartial. Such spending creates the appearance of unequal influence, in a branch that represents, above all, the right to an equal, fair hearing before the law.

That’s why lawmakers in North Carolina estab-lished public financing for appellate court races in 2002, reducing pressure on judicial candidates to raise money from those appearing in court. In part to guard against the reality or appearance of partiality, disclosure laws are designed to shed light on who is spending on court elections. Indeed, it was a West Virginia law that revealed the role of Don Blankenship, the coal executive who spent $3 million to sway a Supreme Court election, because he had to document his mas-sive independent expenditures.

But increasingly, such reforms are under assault, facing court challenges alleging that they violate First Amendment free-speech rights. Many of these cases don’t single out judicial elections. But as a whole, they seek a broad dismantling of campaign finance rules that could have a profound effect on elected courts, by encour-aging an unlimited boom in special interest campaigns to “buy justice.” (See “Balancing Two Constitutional Rights,” Page 64.) Days after the Citizens United ruling in January 2010, lawyer James Bopp, Jr. told the New York Times: “We had a 10-year plan to take all this down…And if we do it right, I think we can pretty well dis-

“At a time when concerns about the conduct of judicial elections have reached a fever pitch, the Court today unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending in these races.”

– Justice John Paul Stevens, from dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission


mantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law.”14

In the three decades since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld public financing and contribution limits for federal elections, much of the debate has focused on spending by independent cam-paigns. In judicial elections, these independent expenditures frequently eclipse the candidates’ official campaigns. In 2008, four of the five most expensive ad campaigns were run by indepen-dent groups, only one by a candidate.

In Caperton v. Massey, which involved an inde-pendent campaign, the Supreme Court found that large independent expenditures, not just donations to candidates, can in some cases threaten the proper functioning of elected state courts, by creating an unacceptable potential for bias favoring a campaign benefactor.

The courts have provided significant victories for the public’s right to enact campaign finance

laws. In Duke v. Leake, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld North Carolina’s public financing law, including its rescue and trigger funds provisions and report-ing requirements. And while some federal courts have struck down disclosure requirements for independent groups, even as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed such laws, disclosure rules have been upheld and remain in effect in other states.

The most recent challenge, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, may be the biggest yet. In June 2009, the Supreme Court asked for an additional special hearing, to consider whether a federal ban on election spending by corporations violated the First Amendment. (The original federal corporate limits date to 1907, and such laws had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 and 2003.)

Figure 32.



An amicus brief filed by Justice at Stake and 19 other reform groups warned that ending the cor-porate treasury ban could engulf elected courts with special interest money, if similar state laws also were struck down. “Special interest spend-ing on judicial elections—by corporations, labor unions, and other groups—poses an unprec-edented threat to public trust in the courts and to the rights of litigants,” said the brief, which added, “As other groups felt pressure to match this corporate treasury spending, these issues would only snowball.”15

Citing the 2009 Caperton ruling, the brief added: “This Court itself held last term … that some independent expenditures in judicial campaigns are so excessive that they in fact deny litigants due process under the law. If corporate treasury spending were unregulated in judicial elections, these concerns would only get worse.”

In January 2010, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to declare corporate spending bans unconstitu-tional. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens cited the Justice at Stake amicus brief, warning that the ruling could have an especially heavy impact on state court elections. “At a time when concerns about the conduct of judicial elections have reached a fever pitch,” Stevens wrote, “the Court today unleashes the floodgates of cor-porate and union general treasury spending in these races.”

Balancing Two Constitutional Rights: Free Speech and Fair Trials

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that prop-erly crafted campaign laws serve compelling government interests and are consistent with the First Amendment. But opponents of campaign reform often file challenges invoking the First Amendment—broadly and sometimes improp-erly—in order to cripple efforts to deal with the tide of money flooding our political system.

Shortly after Watergate, the Court upheld cam-paign contribution limits in Buckley v. Valeo, rejecting the argument that the First Amendment overrode the government’s compelling interest in preventing corruption.

Financial disclosure laws have been held to serve another compelling interest: informing the public about who is seeking to win government influence through election spending.16 A 2007 ruling, Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission, exempted non-election issue ads from campaign regulation, but it didn’t give advocacy groups a blank check to bypass finan-cial disclosure laws. When supposed issue ads are “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate,” they can be regulated like any other election ad, the Supreme Court ruled.

Much of the First Amendment debate has not focused on whether campaign regulation is constitutional for candidates on the ballot—overwhelmingly, such laws have been upheld—but how campaign laws relate to special-interest groups running independent campaigns. That split was reflected in the controversial ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations can finance independent campaigns directly from their treasuries. But by 8-1, the court reaffirmed that financial disclosure laws are constitutional, even for independent election campaigns. The new bottom line is that corpora-tions can spend freely on independent election campaigns, but they have no constitutional right to do so anonymously.

“What latitude is there for trying to impose more ex ante limits on the kind of judge buying. . . that led to the Caperton ruling? Now, I strongly support First Amendment limits on expenditure limitations in the political campaign context, but I think there is no reason to think they apply exactly the same way in judicial election contexts.”

– Kathleen Sullivan, Stanford University law professor


Moreover, federal courts have consistently ruled that, when it comes to court elections, the First Amendment must be properly weighed against other constitutional rights.

In Caperton v. Massey, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not trump the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, and its guarantee of a fair, impartial tribunal. In dis-qualifying a judge from a case involving a major campaign supporter, the Court made clear that there is no First Amendment right to the judge of one’s choosing. Thus, the Constitution provides robust protections for political speech during a judicial campaign. But once the voting is over, the Constitution guarantees all litigants a fair hearing, even if a particular elected judge must sometimes step aside. Significantly, although Citizens United allowed unlimited spending by corporate treasuries, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy nonetheless reaffirmed Caperton, say-ing that a judge may be disqualified when one litigant’s campaign expenditures have “a disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case.”

In Duke v. Leake, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically rejected a First Amendment challenge to North Carolina’s judi-cial public financing system. Saying that the state had a “vital interest” in protecting courts, it ruled that participating judicial candidates could receive additional public funds if an oppo-

nent or independent group exceeds specified spending limits.

Various interest groups continue trying to use the First Amendment to trump the guarantee of due process.

In Wisconsin, months after Caperton v. Massey was decided, two of the state’s biggest interest groups, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and the Wisconsin Realtors Association, per-suaded the state Supreme Court to adopt lan-guage they supplied that turned the Caperton decision on its head. By a 4-3 majority, the court said campaign contributions and independent expenditures could never be the sole cause of a judge’s recusal. The Wisconsin court accepted the groups’ argument that recusal in such cases represented “de facto suppression” of the free speech of campaign spenders.17

The WMC and WRA argued that the only consti-tutional concerns at stake were First Amendment values. In doing so, they largely ignored the clear message of Caperton: where issues of recusal are concerned, First Amendment claims must be balanced with due process concerns.

Such efforts will no doubt continue. If the First Amendment becomes a proxy to use limitless secret money to tilt the scales of justice, or is twisted into a right to choose the judge one has paid to elect, then the Constitution’s guarantee of a fair trial will be swallowed up.

“ The concern for promoting and protecting the impartiality and independence of the judiciary is not a new one; it dates back at least to our nation’s founding. . . . The provisions challenged today, which embody North Carolina’s effort to protect this vital interest in an independent judiciary, are within the limits placed on the state by the First Amendment.”

– Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Duke v. Leake, upholding public financing of state appellate court elections


CHAPTER 4 NOTES“Company asks Benjamin to recuse himself 1. again, this time with poll numbers,” Legal News Online, March 28, 2008, http://legalnewsline.com/news/209989-company-asks-benjamin-to-recuse-himself-again-this-time-with-poll-numbers.

Co-signing the 2. Justice at Stake Campaign’s amicus brief were: American Judicature Society, Appleseed, Common Cause, Constitutional Accountability Center, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, League of Women Voters, National Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Judicial Campaign Conduct, Alabama Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, Colorado Judicial Institute, Democracy North Carolina, Fund for Modern Courts, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, Justice for All, League of Women Voters of Michigan, League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Fund, Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, Michigan Campaign Finance Network, Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts, NC Center for Voter Education, Ohio Citizen Action, Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, Texans for Public Justice, Washington Appellate Lawyers Association, Washington Appleseed, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, Chicago Appleseed, and Chicago Council of Lawyers.

Paul Nyden, “Mining Appeal Moving Along,” 3. West Virginia Gazzette, May 16, 2008, at http://www.wvga-zette.com/News/200805150741.

Caperton v. A.T. 4. Massey Coal Co., Amicus Curiae brief, Brennan Center for Justice, available at http://brennan.3cdn.net/7ef37b5cbb848b77e8_b9m6b5zt9.pdf.

Caperton v. A.T. 5. Massey Coal Co., Brief of Amici Curiae, The Conference of Chief Justices, in Support of Neither Party 4 (U.S. No. 08-22), available at http://brennan.3cdn.net/d6274e472669a87b58_dqm6i-i1z9.pdf

In-depth information on the case and court argu-6. ments are available at Justice at Stake, http://www.justiceatstake.org/resources/in_depth_issues_guides/caperton_resource_page/, and the Brennan Center for Justice, http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/caperton_v_massey/.

All quotes, including those in dissent, are 7. taken from the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Caperton v. Massey, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdf.

Tony Mauro, “Coping With Caperton,” Blog of Legal 8. Times, June 10, 2009, http://legaltimes.typepad.com/

blt/2009/06/coping-with-caperton-a-conversation-with-tom-phillips.html.

Press Release, 9. Justice at Stake, “Poll: Huge Majority Wants Firewall Between Judges, Election Backers,” (Feb. 22, 2009), includes link to polling data. Release is available at http://www.justiceatstake.org/newsroom/press_releases.cfm/poll_huge_major-ity_wants_firewall_between_judges_election_backers?show=news&newsID=5677.

Republican Party of 10. Minnesota v. White (2002), opin-ion available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=01-521.

Weaver v. Bonner11. (2002), opinion available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=docket&no=0015158opn.

Siefert v. Alexander12. , order and opinion, available at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1527183.html.

13. Midwest Democracy Network, Justice at Stake Campaign, “Guidelines for Judicial Candidates,” September 2008, http://staging.justiceatstake.sitevizenterprise.com/media/cms/JASMWMemorev_50F6EDD22B678.pdf.

David D. Kirkpatrick, “A Quest to End Spending 14. Rules for Campaigns, New York Times, Jan. 24, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/us/politics/25bopp.html?emc=eta1.

15. Justice at Stake Campaign, amicus brief in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, http://www.justiceatstake.org/media/cms/JAS_CU_Brief_FA9AE1D6AB94E.pdf.

In 16. Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court specifically considered the First Amendment, but cited three compelling government interests that justi-fied various campaign finance rules. “Preserving the integrity of the election process”—combatting cor-ruption and the appearance of corruption—was suf-ficient reason to justify both campaign contribution limits and financial disclosure rules. The court said two additional reasons justified financial disclosure rules, both for candidates and independent campaigns urging a candidate’s election or defeat. These were “informing the public” as to which interests were supporting a particular candidate; and as a “record-keeping” aid, to help detect potential violations of campaign contribution limits.

17. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Petition to Wisconsin Supreme Court on Proposed Amendment to Judicial Code, http://wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/0910petitionsupport.pdf.

“Judicial elections are not going away [and] Caperton provides a backstop for the most egregious cases of large campaign spending, particularly when other measures are off the table or severely limited.”

—Richard Hasen, Loyola University professor and expert in election law


CHAPTER 5

Public Takes Note, Decision-Makers Begin to FollowIf 2000–2009 was the decade when runaway spending defined a “New Politics” of judicial elections, it also was the decade when the public, media and legal community took note, and demanded reforms to restore trust in the courts.

Throughout the decade, state and national polls have shown an overwhelming concern about the intersection of campaign money with the courts’ historic and constitutional role as a fair, impar-tial tribunal that provides “equal justice under law.” Since 2001, nationwide polls by Justice at Stake,1 USA Today2 and Zogby International3 have revealed similar numbers: About three Americans in four believe campaign contribu-tions can tilt the scales of justice, by influencing courtroom decisions.

Other polls show 79 percent of business execu-tives, and even 46 percent of state judges, believe campaign cash affects rulings by judges.4

Newspaper articles and editorials have exten-sively documented the dangers of special interest money and called for stronger recusal mecha-nisms, merit selection of judges, and/or public financing of judicial election campaigns. Most encouragingly, in the few cases where court issues went directly to voters, they have voted to protect impartial courts.

The good news of the past decade is this: Americans support the Constitution’s vision of courts free from outside manipulation. They understand that our nation’s courts should be accountable to the law, not special interest or extremist agendas. Instinctively and overwhelm-ingly, they understand that there should not even be an appearance that one side can win a case by subsidizing a judge’s election.

Recent Reform Efforts

While decision-makers have frequently been slow to respond with concrete reforms, there were real signs as the decade closed that the new politics of judicial elections were creating a growing openness to meaningful reform.

In November 2009, Michigan’s Supreme Court became the nation’s first court, after the Caperton decision, to significantly strengthen state recusal rules. It also became the first high court ever to say individual justices could be ordered, by a vote of fellow justices, to step aside from cases where ethical conflicts had been demonstrated.

Under the rule, all Michigan judges and jus-tices may be asked to step aside if “the judge’s impartiality might objectively and reasonably be questioned.” At the Supreme Court level, “If the challenged justice denies the motion for disqual-ification, a party may move for the motion to be decided by the entire Court. The entire Court shall then decide the motion for disqualification de novo.” In lower courts, a judge’s refusal to step aside can be appealed to the chief judge.

In December 2009, Wisconsin, which had been buffeted by two costly Supreme Court elec-tions, became the third state nationally to adopt public financing for appellate court elections. Just three months later in West Virginia, where the money-soaked 2004 election ultimately led to Caperton v. Massey, lawmakers in March 2010 enacted a pilot public-financing program for the state’s 2012 Supreme Court elections.5 Public financing of appellate races has also been discussed in Illinois, as part of a package of reforms following the impeachment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Illinois lawmakers also enacted

68 The Public Takes Note

contribution limits for all elections, including judicial campaigns.

In Nevada, where the Los Angeles Times6 detailed judicial fundraising scandals, voters were set to decide in 2010 whether to choose judges through merit selection. In merit systems, a nonpartisan panel submits candidates to the governor, who selects from that list. Judges then face voters in periodic retention elections. Former Gov. Al Quie pushed a similar plan in Minnesota, and in Pennsylvania a constitutional amendment

was urged by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and four present and former governors.7

Americans are ready for real reform. For instance, a January 2008 survey of Wisconsin voters showed strong bipartisan support for public financing of state Supreme Court elec-tions, with 65 percent favoring such a plan and only 26 percent opposing it. A December 2007 poll in Missouri showed strong public support for the existing judicial appointment system. In February 2009, a series of national polls, includ-

No Answer

Just a Little or No Influence

Great Deal of or Some

76%

19%

5%

Do you believe campaign spending affects court room decisions?

Disagree

Agree

97%

3%

Judges should not rule on cases involving campaign contributors?

Public financing “makes all the difference. I’ve run in two elections, one with campaign finance reform and one without. I’ll take ‘with’—any day, anytime, anywhere.”

—Judge Wanda Bryant, Court of Appeals of North Carolina

What the Public and Business Leaders Think

Figure 33.

Sources, from left to right: Justice at Stake, 2001 national poll; Committee for Economic Development, 2007 survey of business leaders; Justice at Stake, 2008 poll of Wisconsin voters


ing a Harris Interactive survey for Justice at Stake, showed that more than eight Americans in 10 supported rules changes so that judges would not hear cases involving big-money elec-tion supporters.8

The Broader Reform Menu

Here is a summary of efforts to insulate courts from special-interest pressure:

Public Financing for Appellate Court Elections North Carolina adopted public financing in 2002. By any measure, the North Carolina pro-gram has been a huge success. Women, minori-ties and candidates of both parties have been elected, and in three elections (2004, 2006 and 2008), 31 of 40 eligible candidates participated in the system.9 Public financing reduces the burden on judicial candidates to raise money from spe-cial interests before the court, and thus lowers the potential for ethical conflict. Said Wanda Bryant, Judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals: “It makes all the difference. I’ve run

in two elections, one with campaign finance reform and one without. I’ll take ‘with’ – any day, anytime, anywhere.”10 (New Mexico, which has a hybrid appointment-election system and only rarely holds contestable elections, adopted public financing in 2007 but the system has not yet been used.) Wisconsin’s public-financing law was signed by Gov. Jim Doyle in December 2009, and in March 2010, West Virginia’s legis-lature approved a pilot public-financing program for Supreme Court elections in 2012.

Financial Disclosure LawsFinancial disclosure laws, important because they give the public information and perspective on who is spending money in their elections, were enacted in a few states after Congress passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in 2002. But many legislatures have been indifferent, and in a few cases, federal courts have struck down or limited the use of disclosure laws. A bill passed in Mississippi to improve disclosure laws was vetoed in 2005. “Indecent Disclosure,” a 2007 report by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, noted that only five states had truly effective, timely laws for shedding sunlight on independent campaigns

No Answer

No

Yes

65%

26%

9%

Do you favor voluntary public financing for Supreme Court candidates?

“ Millions of dollars spent by special interests each year to influence state elections go essentially unreported to the public. [Independent expenditures] form the single-largest loophole in the laws. . . implementing transparency in state electoral politics.”

– Indecent Disclosure, 2007 report by the National Institute on Money in State Politics


by interest groups: “Millions of dollars spent by special interests each year to influence state elections go essentially unreported to the public. [Independent expenditures] form the single-largest loophole in the laws and administrative procedures implementing transparency in state electoral politics.”11 One important dimension of the Citizens United ruling is that it declared, 8-1, that election disclosure laws are constitutional—giving states a clear green light that they may strengthen their laws to shed sunlight on elec-tion spending by special-interest groups.

Stronger Recusal Rules for JudgesStronger recusal rules for judges in cases involv-ing campaign benefactors have enormous poten-tial to reduce conflict, by encouraging judges not to handle cases involving major campaign supporters. An American Bar Association model rule, which proposed toughening recusal rules for judges, has been largely ignored by state court systems, in part because of perceived flaws with the specific proposal. However, Caperton v. Massey, which involved a West Virginia judge’s refusal to step aside, highlighted the problem of jurists serving as the final arbiter in their own recusal cases. A 2008 Brennan Center for Justice report, “Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards,” established a menu of 10 possible reforms, significantly focusing on the need for independent adjudication of the most serious disqualification motions. The ABA is exploring new model recusal rules,12 and according to a Brennan Center summary, disqualification rules were being reviewed in 11 states in 2009, by courts, legislatures, bar associations or appointed bodies.13

Voter Information/GuidesIn 2004, North Carolina became the first, and to date only, state to mail judicial voter educa-

tion guides to every registered voter. Michigan and Ohio have worked with civic groups such as the League of Women Voters to publish online voters guides for judicial races, while other states, including Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington, mail out judicial information as part of more extensive voter guides. In Washington, a creative non-government information source is provided by www.votingforjudges.org, which includes candidate statements and experience, as well as reports on their financial backing. But there remains an overwhelming need for greater resources. According to a 2004 Justice at Stake poll, 67 percent of those surveyed said reliable nonpartisan voters guides would make them more likely to vote in judicial elections.14

Judicial Performance EvaluationsWell-designed judicial performance evalu-ations provide objective feedback to judges from lawyers, staff, witnesses, jurors and others who come into contact with judges, while quantify-ing that data to help voters assess a judge’s fitness. According to the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, nine states conduct government-run survey programs and release data to the public on at least some judges. Seven others conduct government-run surveys but show data only to the judges themselves. Hawaii shows the full data to judges and releases a summary to the public.15

Appointment/Retention SystemsJudicial appointment/retention systems (also known as merit selection) gained national popu-larity in the 1960s and 1970s, and 24 states even-tually chose to use nonpartisan commissions to screen state supreme court nominees. But the movement stalled in the 1980s.16 Signaling a potentially significant shift, voters in Greene County, Missouri, chose in 2008 to replace

“I think judicial elections are really the untold story of Citizens United, the untold implication. . . . But judicial elections are really a national scandal that few people really know about.”

—Jeffrey Toobin, writer for The New Yorker


elections for local judges with a nonpartisan judicial nominating commission, while voters in Johnson County, Kansas, soundly rejected efforts to get rid of their appointment system for local judges. In 2009, Nevada lawmakers put a constitutional amendment before voters, to be decided in November 2010, on whether to use an appointment/retention system for state Supreme Court justices, and in 2010, Minnesota lawmak-ers were considering a proposed amendment to use retention elections for sitting justices, instead of nonpartisan competitive elections. In Ohio, the late Chief Justice Thomas Moyer (a Justice at

Stake board member) led public efforts to adopt merit selection for the Supreme Court until his death in April 2010, while Maryland, which uses retention elections for appellate courts, consid-ered an amendment to use the same system for Circuit Court judges. And in March 2010, West Virginia established a judicial nominating com-mission to screen and submit qualified nominees to the governor when midterm judicial vacan-cies occurred. Fourteen states now use similar commissions to help fill at least some midterm vacancies.

The Rise and Fall of Judicial Tampering by Ballot MeasuresFor fair courts advocates, one of the biggest stories in 2008 was a non-story. Nationally, no statewide ballot measures sought to make damaging attacks on the court system. This stood in welcome contrast to 2006, when five ballot measures had the potential to expose courts to special interest and partisan assault.

In the last decade, few proposals caused greater dread than the 2006 “J.A.I.L. 4 Judges” ballot measure in South Dakota. The measure, inspired by a disgruntled populist in California, was a test drive of a truly radi-cal idea: creating a special grand jury that could indict judges for making “wrong” decisions. Judges would have been forced to pay their own legal bills to defend themselves. They also would have been stripped of their immunity from civil suits.

In the months before the election, a broad bipar-tisan opposition stepped forward. The business com-munity, which needs stable arbiters to resolve business disputes, joined with both political parties and civic groups. The measure suffered a devastating loss, 89 to 11 percent, in a conservative heartland state. Perhaps as a consequence, no other states saw a “J.A.I.L. 4 Judges” initiative in 2008.

Less extreme, but still significant, ballot measures also were defeated in 2006—in Colorado, Hawaii and Oregon—that sought to tamper with the courts’ composition. Hawaii voters rejected a plan to eliminate mandatory retirement for judges, just as a Republican candidate was poised to claim the governorship and appoint judges to fill vacancies nor-mally created by retirement. Oregon voters rejected a plan to choose appellate judges by district. A Montana initiative was voided because of fraudulent petition signatures, and Colorado voters rejected a measure to institute retroactive term limits on appellate judges.

Forces opposing the Colorado measure warned that the measure would force more than half of all appellate judges into instant retirement, and allow one governor to repack the court en masse. They reduced their campaign to four words: “Bad Idea, Serious Consequences.” Voters agreed, and in 2008, the measure’s sponsor, a former state sena-tor, said he couldn’t get enough money to attempt a new petition drive.

Paid for by No on E Committee, PO Box 814, Pierre, SD 57501. Bob Miller, Treasurer.

hurts good people.Amendment E lets convicts sue jurors. If a lawbreaker doesn’t like your decision, E gives them the power to come after you. Don’t make your family, friends or yourself vulnerable

to a vindictive con. Vote NO on E.

AmendmentonNO E

Figure 34.


The Media Take NoteOn March 3, 2009, the same morning that the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Caperton v. Massey, the New York Times, USA Today and the Washington Post all ran editorials decrying special-interest money in court elections. This unprecedented one-day display capped a decade of growing national media attention to runaway special-interest spending. Some high-lights:

The West Virginia case, while extreme, points to an alarming trend. It comes at a time when judicial neutrality — and the appearance of neutrality — basic to due process are under a growing threat from big-money state judicial campaigns and the special-interest contributions that fuel them. —New York Times editorial, March 3, 2009

Judicial races, once staid, low-budget affairs, have in the past decade turned into mudslinging, multimillion-dollar brawls that have shaken public confidence in justice. All over the nation, Republicans and business interests often vie against Democrats, trial lawyers and labor unions to shop for judges who will vote their way. —USA Today editorial, March 3, 2009

States should consider barring judges from considering cases involving litigants or lawyers who were directly or indirectly responsible for campaign contributions beyond a certain limit. More fundamental, states should consider abolishing judicial elections in favor of an appointment system that distances jurists from politics and fundraising.—Washington Post editorial, March 3, 2009

In 2006, a Los Angeles Times investigation showed that even Nevada judges running unopposed collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from litigants. The report noted that donations were “frequently” dated “within days of when a judge took action in the contributor’s case.”

In 2006, Adam Liptak and Janet Roberts of the New York Times published a groundbreaking study of Ohio Supreme Court decisions. The study showed that over a twelve-year period, Ohio justices voted in favor of their contributors more than 70% of the time, with one justice, Terrence O’Donnell, voting with his contributors 91% of the time.

The issue is whether Supreme Court justices will be perceived as just your common ordinary politician, thought to be willing to dance with the folks whose big money brought them to the ball.—Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial

Since 2000, judicial elections in Mississippi have degenerated into spending contests between the state’s business/medical community and trial lawyers—with hefty national special interest groups joining in. —Jackson Clarion-Ledger editorial

How would you like to go into an appeals court if your opponent in the case spent $3 million to help elect one of the judges?—Boston Globe editorial


Judicial Appointments: The Emerging Battlefront

One of the hottest battles in judicial politics has pivoted on one question: should judges be elected at all?

Some leading papers, scholars and judicial luminaries, such as former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, advocate merit selection, a system in which nonpartisan commissions submit slates of judicial candidates, to the governor, for final appointment. But a passionate and well-connected opposition has worked with unprec-edented force to weaken or dismantle merit selection systems, and bring more states into the free-spending world of judicial elections.

In 2007 and 2008, this fight played out at the state level, in Missouri and Tennessee, and at the county level, in elections in Missouri and Kansas.

Lining up to eliminate or modify judicial appointment systems—commonly known as merit selection—were a number of national heavyweights. They included the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page;17 the Federalist Society (with polls in Missouri and Tennessee, and prom-inently published academic papers in Kansas and Tennessee); and the American Justice Partnership, an offshoot of the National Association of Manufacturers. CRC Communications, which

ran the 2004 “swift boat” campaign, helped handle anti-merit publicity in Missouri and Tennessee.18 In Kansas, a conservative religious group called Kansas Judicial Review (with a program called “Clear the Bench”) led anti-merit efforts.19

For all the fury, the effort so far has borne limited fruit.

In April 2008, Missouri legislators beat back a ferocious campaign to tamper with the state’s commission nomination system, which dates to 1940 and is the nation’s oldest. Defenders of the plan, including the Missouri State Bar, said the changes would expose courts to greater partisan politics. An encore effort also failed in 2008, when the Senate refused to vote on a pro-posed ballot measure.

Figure 35. Ad for Greene County Nonpartisan Court Plan

Figure 36. Ad against Greene County Nonpartisan Court Plan featuring John Ashcroft, former Missouri senator and U.S. attorney general


I n

Tennessee, a long-standing judicial appointment system was scheduled to expire in 2009—coin-cidentally, just as the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating on Caperton v. Massey. Faced with a worst-case scenario in neighboring West

Virginia, Tennessee lawmakers shied away from state Supreme Court elections, instead voting to preserve a modified appointment system.

“The Tennessee Plan may need some tweaking, but it’s better than state-wide races that force appellate judges to raise huge amounts of cash from sources who often contribute for selfish reasons,” said a Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial. The paper added that chances of a Caperton scenario in Tennessee “might be slim, but it’s a chance we shouldn’t have to take at all.”20

But anti-merit efforts were complicated by a key factor over the 2000–09 decade. The public, while showing an instinctive desire to elect officials, generally failed to buy the vitriolic language peddled by the harshest enemies of judicial appointments.

Whereas the Wall Street Journal has likened appointment systems to a “judicial coup” by trial lawyers, and the American Justice Partnership regularly calls appointment panels “star cham-bers,” the appointment/retention systems have

helped keep money out of judicial selec-tion for decades—and they have earned

broad public confidence.

A 2007 poll by Justice at Stake showed that 71 percent of Missouri voters trusted the

state’s system of appointing appellate judges.21 While a state Federalist Society pollster later

claimed a “full-throated cry” for change,22 the Justice at Stake poll found that only 2 percent of Missouri voters considered changing the judicial selection system a top priority.

The Voters Weigh In

The public confirmed its wariness of special-interest influence in 2008 at the ballot box. Voters in Greene County, Missouri, were asked to get rid of competitive elections for local trial judges, instead using a system of appointments and periodic retention elections, while voters in Johnson County, Kansas, were asked to do the opposite, and get rid of their appointment system for local judges.

The elections forced voters to weigh two well-documented competing values. Polls—including

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Merit SelectionThroughout the decade, a widely publicized U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey showed that states using the nonpartisan merit selection process to appoint judges ranked among the most trusted by America’s business leaders. The survey’s lowest-ranking states were dominated by those with runaway judicial election spending.

Highest-Ranking Litigation Climates 1. Delaware (Judges Appointed/Merit Selection)

2. North Dakota (Nonpartisan Elections)

3. Nebraska (Judges Appointed/Merit Selection)

4. Indiana (Judges Appointed/Merit Selection)

5. Iowa (Judges Appointed/Merit Selection)

Lowest-Ranking Litigation Climates46. California (Judges Appointed)

47. Alabama (Partisan Elections)

48. Mississippi (Nonpartisan Elections)

49. Louisiana (Partisan Elections)

50. West Virginia (Partisan Elections)

In a 2009 report indicating further consid-eration of merit selection, the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform outlined best practices for merit selection of judges.

“ Quality of justice in our state courts is of critical importance to the entire business community.”

– Promoting “Merit” in Merit Selection, 2009 report by U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform


surveys by such disparate groups as the American Bar Association, American Judicature Society and American Justice Partnership—show three Americans in four initially favor electing judges over appointing them, when asked that question in a vacuum. But opinion surveys also show a second, countervailing concern: three Americans in four believe special-interest spending makes courtrooms less fair and impartial.

Defenders of the appointment system in Johnson County invoked public concerns about cam-paign cash in one slogan, “Keep Politic$ Out of Our Courts.” Opponents of merit selection in Greene County persuaded John Ashcroft, a local hero who became Missouri senator, and U.S. attorney general, to take the other side, airing a TV ad urging the public not to surrender its right to vote in judicial races.

Attempting to convert these local measures into a national ideological debate, the Wall Street Journal cited Johnson and Greene counties in separate editorials—extraordinary attention for county-level ballot measures23—while the national Federalist Society mailed educational letters to voters in Greene County, an equal-ly unusual intervention in a local race. The Ashcroft ad was funded by $315,000 from a statewide group, whose ultimate funding source remains a mystery.24

In the end, voters backed merit selection in both jurisdictions. They put their trust in local lead-ers, including the local chambers of commerce, who said the appointment systems produce qualified judges and stable courts. The support-ing role of the local business community was intriguing, and may have a significant impact as states such as Nevada and Minnesota consider whether to move away from competitive elec-tions for state Supreme Court judges.

Debate in the Business Sector

While business groups have enjoyed consider-able success in such elections during the “New Politics” era, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s own national rankings offer a different take on the election/appointment debate. According to the Chamber’s annual survey of corporate counsel, four of the five lowest-ranking states, from a business perspective, have contested judicial elections marked by runaway spending. Four of the five states with the best litigation climates, according to the survey, have appoint-ment systems—using the commission nominat-ing system known as merit selection.25

In October 2009, the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform sent a significant signal that the nation’s top business organization may be rethinking the potential benefits of judicial appointment systems. In a groundbreaking report, “Promoting ‘Merit’ in Merit Selection,”26 the Institute presented a list of best practices for states that fill judicial vacancies through appointment rather than election. Without endorsing appointment systems over elections, the Chamber report praised Arizona’s appoint-ment system as a model that promotes public trust.

Noting that the “quality of justice in our state courts is of critical importance to the entire business community,” the report said appoint-ment systems serve the public best when they are “characterized by transparency, diverse par-ticipation in the Commission, and opportunities for the public at large to provide input into the process.”

“Messy judicial campaigns are not inevitable in Missouri if citizens are willing to. . . stand up for independent courts and say no to political extremism and opportunists.”

—St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial



CHAPTER 5 NOTESPress Release, National Surveys of American Voters 1. and State Judges, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and American Viewpoint for Justice at Stake (Feb. 14, 2002), available at http://www.justiceatstake.org/media/cms/PollingsummaryFINAL_9EDA3EB3BEA78.pdf.

Joan Biskupic, “Supreme Court case with the feel of 2. a best seller,” USA Today, Feb. 16, 2009 available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-16-grisham-court_N.htm. According to the USA

Today/Gallup poll, 89 percent felt contributions potentially affecting courtroom decisions was a prob-lem, and 52 percent consider it a “major” problem. The article added: “More than 90% of the 1,027 adults surveyed said judges should be removed from a case if it involves an individual or group that contributed to the judge’s election campaign.”

Press Release, 3. Justice at Stake, March 2004 Survey Highlights, Zogby International for Justice at Stake (March 2004) available at http://www.justiceatstake.org/media/cms/ZogbyPollFactSheet_54663DAB970C6.pdf

A week after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,

New York Times editorial writer Dorothy Samuels wrote the above column about special-interest

spending and elected courts. The column appeared January 30, 2010, on Page A22.

From New York Times, © Jan. 30, 2010. All rights reserved. Used by permission and protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States.

Reprinted From


Both polls, the 2007 4. Committee for Economic Development Survey of Business Executives and the 2001 National Bipartisan Survey of Almost 2,500 Judges, are available at http://www.justiceatstake.org/resources/justice_at_stake_polls.cfm.

A Justice at Stake poll showed support for public 5. financing spiked significantly when West Virginia voters were reminded of the money-soaked 2004 state high court election.

Michael J. Goodman and William C. Rempel, “Juice 6. vs. Justice: In Las Vegas, They’re Playing With a Stacked Judicial Deck” Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/08/nation/na-vegas8.

A 2009–10 national summary of judicial reform 7. efforts is available at the Brennan Center for Justice, http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/state_judicial_reform_efforts_2009/.

Information on all three surveys is available at 8. Justice at Stake’s polling page, http://www.justiceatstake.org/resources/justice_at_stake_polls.cfm.

2004 and 2006 data at 9. http://www.ncjudges.org/jcra/pcf.html, 2008 data from Nov. 5, 2008, Justice at Stake press release, “2008 Supreme Court Elections: More Money, More Nastiness,” www.justiceatstake.org.

“New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2006,” 10. Brennan Center for Justice, National Institute on Money in State Politics, Justice at Stake Campaign, http://www.justiceatstake.org/resources/the_new_politics_of_judi-cial_elections.cfm.

Linda King, “Indecent Disclosure,” 11. National Institute on Money in State Politics report, August 2007, http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200708011.pdf.

James Sample, David Pozen, and Michael Young, 12. “Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards,” (New York: Brennan Center for Justice, 2008), available at http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/fair_courts_setting_recusal_standards/. The ABA’s ongoing work on its Judicial Disqualification Project can be found at the ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, http://www.abanet.org/judind/home.html.

See also, James Sample, “Court Reform Enters the 13. Post-Caperton Era,” Drake Law Review (publication scheduled in 2010).

14. Justice at Stake Campaign, press release, “Americans Speak Out on Judicial Elections,” March 2004, http://www.justiceatstake.org/media/cms/ZogbyPollFactSheet_54663DAB970C6.pdf.

15. Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, Judicial Performance Evaluation page, http://www.du.edu/legalinstitute/jpe.html.

A comprehensive survey of judicial selection methods 16. in the states is available at the American Judicature Society, http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selec-tion_materials/index.cfm. Also see Justice at Stake’s “Your State” national map, http://www.justiceatstake.org/state/index.cfm.

A number of 17. Wall Street Journal editorials targeting merit selection can be found at www.gavelgrab.org. One example is the Aug. 14, 2008, editorial, “The ABA Plots a Judicial Coup,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867190633138889.html?mod=article-outset-box.

See separate articles in Gavel Grab blog focusing 18. on CRC/Federalist Society in Missouri (http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=330) and Tennessee (http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=192). Also see Scott Lauck, “Federalist Society Finds Missouri Voters Want More Say Over Judges,” Missouri Lawyers Weekly, March 12, 2007, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29956442_ITM

Details of the “Clear the Bench” initiative may be 19. found at http://www.kansasjudicialreview.org/.

20. Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial, “Let’s Retain Tennessee Plan,” March 15, 2009, http://www.com-mercialappeal.com/news/2009/mar/15/lets-retain-the-tenn-plan/.

21. Justice at Stake poll, December 2007, http://www.justiceatstake.org/media/cms/MissouriMemoAndOverallResults_15E5E80BAC758.pdf.

See Note 18, 22. Missouri Lawyers Weekly article.

The 23. Wall Street Journal explicitly cited Johnson County in an Aug. 14, 2008, editorial, as part of a broader attack on judicial appointment systems (“The ABA Plots a Judicial Coup,“ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867190633138889.html?mod=article-outset-box). Greene County, the only Missouri juris-diction voting on merit selection in 2008, was alluded to in an Oct. 30 Wall Street Journal editorial, which said: “In Missouri, where trial court judges are still elected, a referendum would eliminate elections for judges and give the state bar association a larger role in selecting them.” The editorial, “State Courts in the Balance,” is available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533125197182865.html.

“Local Merit Election Explodes Into National 24. Campaign,” Gavel Grab blog, http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=671.

“Lawsuit Climate 2010,” Institute for Legal Reform, 25. www.instituteforlegalreform.com/lawsuit-climate.html#2010.

26. Institute for Legal Reform, “Promoting ‘Merit’ in Merit Selection,” October 2009 report, http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/images/stories/documents/pdf/research/meritselectionbooklet.pdf. See also, Oct. 28, 2009, commentary by Bert Brandenburg, “Big Business Group Lays Out Preferred Merit Model,” in Gavel Grab blog, http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=4605.

78 Appendix 1: State Profiles

Alabama

One of the first states to experience the new politics of judicial elections, Alabama also has been the most expensive. Of the $40.9 million raised by Alabama Supreme Court candidates from 2000 through 2009, $22 million, or 53.7 percent, came from just 20 groups. Eight of the 10 biggest spenders were business or conservative groups, led by the Business Council of Alabama (No. 2, at $4,633,534) and the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee (No. 3, at $2,699,568), which was the leading funder of 2008 win-

ner Greg Shaw. The other two, the Alabama Democratic Party (No. 1, at $ 5,460,117) and Franklin PAC (No. 8, at $765,250), were heavily underwritten by plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising and independent TV ads): $5.4 million, ranking third nationally.

Top Spenders, 2000–09Candidate Contributions

Independent Expenditures Total

Alabama Democratic Party $5,460,117 $0 $5,460,117

Business Council of Alabama $4,633,534 $0 $4,633,534

Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee $2,474,405 $224,663 $2,699,568

American Taxpayers Alliance $0 $1,337,244 $1,337,244

Lawsuit Reform PAC of Alabama $1,321,250 $0 $1,321,250

APPENDIx 1

State Profiles, 2000–2009

Candidate Fundraising $40,964,590

National Ranking1

Total TV$15,690,777

National Ranking2


Georgia

Because of tough, comprehensive rules on candidate contributions, and because three election cycles produced little or no opposition to incumbents, Georgia ranked only 14th in candidate fundraising among the 22 states that held competi-tive Supreme Court elections during 2000–09. But in 2006, Georgia’s high court election became one of the nation’s noisiest and costliest when the Michigan-based American Justice Partnership poured $1.3 million into an independent ad cam-

paign, and the state GOP spent an additional $550,000 on its own TV ads. The effort failed to unseat Justice Carol Hunstein, who relied overwhelmingly on lawyers to raise nearly $1.4 million.



Safety and Prosperity Coalition $0 $1,747,803 $1,747,803

Georgia Republican Party $0 $550,003 $550,003

Georgia Democratic Party $0 $191,456 $191,456

Thomas W. Malone $27,400 $0 $27,400

Troutman Sanders LLP $26,889 $0 $26,889

Illinois

The 2004 Lloyd Karmeier-Gordon Maag race was the most expensive two-candidate judicial election in American history, with $9.3 million raised by the two campaigns. Top spenders over the decade include the Illinois Democratic Party (spending $3,765,920 in contributions and in-kind media buys); the Illinois Republican Party, ($1,981,714 in contributions and TV ads); the Justice for All PAC (spending $1,221,367) and the Illinois Civil Justice League (spending $1,272,083 in contributions and ads). Most, but not all, of that money was spent in the 2004 race, and was heavily underwrit-

ten by plaintiffs’ lawyers or Chamber of Commerce and insurance groups. In 2002, the American Taxpayers Alliance, a group that has received U.S. Chamber funding, spent an estimated $250,000 on TV ads to help elect Republican Rita Garman to the Supreme Court. The 2008 election was a relatively tame footnote to a tumultuous decade: Justice Ann Burke raised $1.8 million in advance of the campaign, which helped drive away any potential opposition, and then later gave back $760,000 after no challengers emerged.



Illinois Democratic Party $3,765,920 $0 $3,765,920

Illinois Republican Party $1,981,714 $0 $1,981,714

Illinois Civil Justice League $1,272,083 $0 $1,272,083

Justice for All PAC $1,221,367 $0 $1,221,367

Illinois Chamber of Commerce $276,838 $0 $276,838


National Ranking14

Total TV$3,128,572

National Ranking8


National Ranking4

Total TV$7,141,130

National Ranking6


Louisiana

Louisiana set a TV spending record in 2008, as incumbent Catherine D. “Kitty” Kimball and newcomer Greg G. Guidry were elected. Despite fairly tight con-tribution limits, state Supreme Court candidates raised $8.9 million in 2000–09, ranking ninth nationally. The Louisiana Association of Business & Industry was a top contributor to the four most recently elected justices, including Guidry and

Kimball. In 2009, Marcus Clark defeated Jimmy Faircloth in a nasty $1.2 million race.

Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising and independent TV ads): $3.9 million, ranking sixth nationally.



Louisiana Conservative Action Network $0 $251,227 $251,227

Louisiana Democratic Party $109,416 $0 $109,416

Louisiana Association of Business & Industry $76,688 $0 $76,688

Alliance for Justice $0 $40,192 $40,192

Adams & Reese $36,000 $0 $36,000

Michigan

For much of the decade, four conservative Supreme Court justices dominated Michigan’s Supreme Court. Their opponents, who assailed the justices as an anti-plaintiff “Gang of Four,” helped defeat Chief Justice Cliff Taylor in 2008. The four justices’ top supporters from 2000–09 included the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Republican Party. Top super spenders on the

other side included the Michigan Democratic Party; the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association; and Citizens for Judicial Reform (CFJR), a group wholly funded by plaintiffs’ lawyer Geoffrey Fieger and his law firm. The state Democrats ran more than $1.1 million ads for 2008 winner Diane Hathaway, almost exactly offsetting the $1.2 million that the Michigan Chamber and GOP combined to spend on TV ads for Justice Taylor. In addition, the state parties and other PACS reported an additional $1 million in non-TV spending in 2008.

Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising, independent TV ads, and $1 mil-lion in non-TV independent expenditures registered with state): $5.9 million.


Independent Expenditures* Total

Michigan Chamber of Commerce $164,140 $2,825,255 $2,989,395

Michigan Democratic Party $219,142 $2,467,121 $2,686,263

Michigan Republican Party $217,233 $2,420,328 $2,637,561

Citizens for Judicial Reform $0 $372,094 $372,094

Ann Arbor PAC $102,000 $208,000 $310,000

*Includes non-TV independent expenditures listed on state campaign records


National Ranking9

Total TV$1,250,731

National Ranking13


National Ranking6

Total TV$10,982,950

National Ranking3


Mississippi

Mississippi was targeted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2000 and 2002. In a pivotal 2002 election, Justice Chuck McRae was ousted after expensive TV campaigns by Mississippians for Economic Progress and by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. Forbes magazine, in 2003, said MFEP received $1 million from the Chamber and that LEAA spent $500,000. LEAA also spent $660,000 to help oust Justice Oliver Diaz, Jr.

in 2008. On the flip side, Chief Justice Jim Smith was defeated in 2008 by Jim Kitchens, a candidate backed by the plaintiffs’ bar.

Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising and independent TV ads): $3.8 million, ranking seventh nationally.



U.S. Chamber/Mississippians for Economic Progress* $0 $2,067,797 $2,067,797

Improve Mississippi PAC (IMPAC) $0 $1,305,910 $1,305,910

Law Enforcement Alliance of America $0 $835,255 $835,255

Stop Lawsuit Abuse in Mississippi $0 $132,259 $132,259

Mississippi Manufacturers Association $62,100 $0 $62,100

*Based on estimates from 2003 Forbes magazine article.

Nevada

With no particularly noteworthy election, Nevada was the nation’s eighth most expen-sive state for Supreme Court elections in 2000–2009. The $3,135,214 spent in the 2008 Supreme Court race narrowly edged the state’s previous record, set in 2004. But unlike most states, Nevada’s impetus for reform came from local courts. A 2006 Los Angeles Times investigation 1 revealed that even judges running unopposed collected hundreds

of thousands of dollars from litigants. Contributions were “frequently” dated “within days of when a judge took action in the contributor’s case,” the report noted. Lawyers said that challenging the system was the “kiss of death” and likened the contributions to a “shakedown” by judges. A state commission recommended a more transparent, timely disciplinary process, and an end to competitive judicial elections. In November 2010, voters will decide whether to replace competitive elections with a merit selection appointment system.

Total Supreme court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising and independent TV ads): $3.1 mil¬lion, ranking ninth nationally.



MGM Mirage $156,000 $0 $156,000

Boyd Gaming $90,000 $0 $90,000

Station Casinos $76,534 $0 $76,534

Coast Hotels & Casinos $71,000 $0 $71,000

Mainor Eglet Cottle $70,000 $0 $70,000

Candidate Fundraising$10,837,071

National Ranking7

Total TV$2,412,915

National Ranking*11


National Ranking8

Total TV$2,894,675

National Ranking9


North Carolina

In 2002, two years after North Carolina saw its first multi-million-dollar Supreme Court election, state leaders established public financing for appel-late court elections. The program has enjoyed broad support from voters and judicial candidates: 11 of 12 eligible candidates took public funding in 2008.

What it hasn’t done is stifle the finances needed for robust campaigning. In 2006, when five of eight Supreme Court candidates accepted public funding, total fundraising was $2.7 million—more than the $2,057,360 raised in 2000. But the public money comes from income-tax check-offs and lawyer fees, as opposed to private funding by those with court business. A 2005 poll showed that 74 percent of state voters wanted to continue public financing for appellate judges.2



Public funding from state $2,517,197 $0 $2,517,197

Fair Judges $0 $272,715 $272,715

North Carolina Democratic Party $196,359 $0 $196,359

North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers $20,000 $0 $20,000

North Carolina Republican Party $16,000 $0 $16,000

Ohio

Few states have more clearly demonstrated how the nationwide tort wars—led by the state and national chambers of commerce on one side, and unions and plaintiffs’ lawyers on the other—can be a driving force in state court elections.

According to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG estimates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and two state affiliates, Citizens for a Strong Ohio (CSO) and Partnership for Ohio’s Future, spent $4.2 million on independent TV ads. In 2005, litigation revealed that spending in 2000 by Citizens for a Strong Ohio was higher than previous public estimates. According to court records, CSO spent $4.4 million in its 2000 campaign alone.3 Funding for Democratic candidates, who were sup-ported by the state party and a lawyer-funded group called Citizens for an Independent Court, ebbed dramatically after Chamber-backed candidates scored court-changing victories in 2002 and 2004.

Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising and independent TV ads): $3.1 million, ranking 10th nationally.



U.S. Chamber of Commerce/Ohio Affiliates $49,000 $7,560,168 $7,609,168

Citizens for an Independent Court $0 $1,543,478 $1,543,478

Ohio Democratic Party $571,530 $718,349 $1,289,879

Ohio Republican Party $1,131,131 $52,303 $1,183,434

Ohio Hospital Association $50,250 $941,910 $992,160


National Ranking13

Total TV$1,564,165

National Ranking12


National Ranking3

Total TV$21,364,846

National Ranking1


Pennsylvania

With no spending limits and a strong trial lawyers’ bar, Pennsylvania has been ripe for a decade-long battle between competing special interests. It also was the scene of a rare high-cost retention battle, when one of two justices was defeated in 2005, amid a public furor over a salary increase for state judges.

The leading players have been the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association and the Pennsylvania Republican Party. Citing rising election costs, the legal reform group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (PMC) has urged merit selection for state appellate judges, in which governors choose from candidates identified by nonpartisan commissions. The plan, endorsed by Gov. Edward Rendell and three former governors, has broad bipartisan support, according to a 2010 PMC poll.

Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising and independent TV ads): $10.3 million, ranking first nationally.



Pennsylvania Republican Party $2,274,534 $387,300 $2,661,834

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association $ 2,398,300 $0 $2,398,300

Center for Individual Freedom $0 $858,611 $858,611

Pennsylvania Democratic Party $291,516 $366,400 $657,916

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers/Affiliated Locals $628,770 $0 $628,770

Texas

Texas was one of the nation’s earliest states to witness the new big-money politics of judicial elections. But a coterie of corporate defense firms, using rules that allow law firms to contribute more than individuals, were prime backers of the state’s all-Republican Supreme Court. Their contributions were dwarfed in one year by the state Democratic Party, which in 2008 spent an estimated $904,000 on TV ads for three

candidates who all lost by narrow margins. Conservative critics accused plaintiffs’ lawyers of covertly financing the ads—a charge supported by groups as diverse as Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Texans for Public Justice.4 Texas’s unusually strict ban on corporate election spending was invalidated by Citizens United, exposing the state to a potential increase in special-interest campaign money.

Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising and independent TV ads): $5.2 million, ranking fourth nationally.



Texas Democratic Party $36,000 $904,978 $940,978

Vinson & Elkins $467,768 $0 $467,768

Texans for Lawsuit Reform $284,045 $0 $284,045

Haynes & Boone $248,464 $0 $248,464

Fulbright & Jaworski $240,848 $0 $240,848


National Ranking2

Total TV$10,547,109

National Ranking4


National Ranking5

Total TV$2,533,538

National Ranking10


Washington

In 2006, every Supreme Court TV ad was paid for by groups not affiliated with the campaigns. The election culminated a crescendo in which special-interest spending rose in three straight election cycles.

The most persistent players were the Building Industry Association of Washington and the Washington Affordable Housing Council. After electing two candidates in 2004, the groups failed to unseat Chief Justice Gerry Alexander in 2006. Pushing back, unions, environmentalists and plaintiffs’ lawyers funded Citizens to Uphold the Constitution, which spent an estimated $228,000 on TV ads supporting Alexander. In 2008, incumbents Mary Fairhurst and Charles W. Johnson won modestly financed primaries and had no opposition in the November elec-tion. Recently appointed incumbent Justice Debra Stephens ran unopposed.



Building Industry Association of Washington $219,573 $464,369 $683,942

Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse $0 $362,030 $362,030

Citizens to Uphold the Constitution $0 $228,749 $228,749

Wash. Affordable Housing Council $157,200 $0 $157,200

Cruise Specialists Inc. $102,000 $0 $102,000

West Virginia

West Virginia suffered a series of controversies, mostly involving one man: Don Blankenship. The CEO of Massey Coal Co. bankrolled a group called And for the Sake of the Kids to help elect Justice Brent D. Benjamin, while appealing a $50 million verdict against his company. Then-Justice Larry Starcher warned that Blankenship had

created “a cancer in the affairs of this Court.” Blankenship’s campaign led to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case (Caperton v. Massey). In 2008, Chief Justice Elliott Maynard, who was photographed vacationing on the Riviera with Blankenship, was ousted by voters. In March 2010, the legislature approved a trial test of public financing for the 2012 Supreme Court elections. It also established an eight-member judicial nominating commission, to screen and recommend appointees to the Governor whenever midterm vacancies occur on the bench.5

Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising and independent TV ads): $3.7 million, ranking eighth nationally.



Don Blankenship $3,000 $2,978,207 $2,981,207

Consumer Attorneys of West Virginia $0 $1,899,200 $1,899,200

West Virginia Chamber of Commerce $8,500 $1,166,427 $1,174,927

Doctors for Justice $0 $745,000 $745,000

West Virginia Coal Association $8,500 $230,000 $238,500


National Ranking12

Total TV$1,158,431

National Ranking14


National Ranking10

Total TV$3,403,981

National Ranking7


Wisconsin

With the 2007 race between Annette Ziegler and Linda Clifford, and the 2008 race between Justice Louis Butler and challenger Michael Gableman, Wisconsin turned overnight into one of the costliest, nastiest battleground states in the nation. Though their TV ads largely focused on criminal justice, the biggest spenders were squarely on opposing sides of the tort/product liabilities debate. Technically

nonpartisan, both elections were won by candidates backed by the Republican establishment against Democratic Party-supported opponents. Backing the winners were Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce; Club for Growth; and the Coalition for American Families. The Greater Wisconsin Committee, backed by organized labor and progressive groups, spent heavily for the two losing candidates. Spending and vitriol both were lower in 2009, as Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson eas-ily defeated challenger Randy Koschnick, both in fund-raising and at the polls. In response to the turmoil, the state enacted public financing of Supreme Court elections in December 2009.

Total Supreme Court spending in 2007–08 (candidate fundraising and independent TV ads): $8.5 million, ranking second nationally.



Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce $9,600 $2,012,748 $2,022,348

Greater Wisconsin Committee $0 $1,736,535 $1,736,535

Club for Growth $0 $611,261 $611,261

Coalition for America's Families $0 $398,078 $398,078

Wisconsin Education Association $0 $48,321 $48,321

APPENDIx 1 NOTESMichael J. Goodman and William C. Rempel, “Juice vs. Justice: In Las Vegas, They’re Playing With a Stacked Judicial 1. Deck” Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/08/nation/na-vegas8.

Press release, North Carolina Center for Voter Education, June 28, 2005, available at 2. http://www.ncjudges.org/media/news_releases/7_28_05.html.

Public Citizen report, available at 3. http://www.citizen.org/congress/special_intr/articles.cfm?ID=15877.

Texans for Public Justice report on 2008 campaign spending is at http://info.tpj.org/reports/txpac08/chapter2.html. 4. Texans for Lawsuit Reform report is at http://www.tlrpac.com/news-08-1121.php.

Additional information and articles are available at 5. http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=5169.


National Ranking11

Total TV$7,332,914

National Ranking5

Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

Alabama

Paseur Amazing Grace 60

Candidate Paseur, D BellLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • • 700 $364,923

Paseur Choice Is Clear


Contrast • 810 $211,560

Paseur Amazing Grace Rev 60


Promote • • 337 $205,765

Paseur Forget Politics


Promote • 923 $203,452

Paseur Tough Smart


Promote • 699 $193,815

Paseur Not Me Candidate Paseur, D BellLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Contrast • • 781 $189,440

Paseur Amazing Grace


Promote • • 582 $140,370

Paseur Only Candidate


Promote • • • 720 $126,175

Paseur Bank Account


Attack • 364 $82,559

Paseur Sunday Newspaper Reported


Contrast • 91 $23,120

Shaw Most Sons 60

Candidate Shaw, GBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 430 $280,685

APPENDIx 2

Supreme Court TV Advertisements, 2008


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

Alabama, continued

Shaw Sam Shaw Candidate Shaw, GBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 620 $169,640

Shaw Broke Her Pledge


Contrast • 406 $138,848

Shaw Amazing Nor Graceful


Contrast • 448 $122,202

Shaw Newspapers Recommend


Contrast • 326 $95,440

Shaw Just Plain Wrong


Promote • • 21 $5,413

Shaw One Vote Candidate Shaw, GBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • • 247 $72,600

CFIF Shaw Tough Place

Special interest group

CFIFBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 1,255 $512,302

CFIF Paseur The Whole Truth


CFIFBusiness, medical, Republican

Attack • • 1,189 $453,227

State Total 10949 $3,591,536

KentuckyAbramson Neighbors Support

Candidate Abramson, LH Non Partisan Promote • 61 $21,877

Abramson Choice Is Clear


Abramson My Mom


Shake True Story Ex-Husband

Candidate Shake, J Non Partisan Promote • • • 90 $29,245

Shake Homegrown Success

Candidate Shake, J Non Partisan Promote • 75 $23,864

Shake True Story Ex-Husband 2

Candidate Shake, J Non Partisan Promote • • • 21 $8,677

State Total 334 $113,635

IdahoBradbury Questions

Candidate Bradbury, J Non Partisan Promote • 245 $22,407

Bradbury Facts Candidate Bradbury, J Non Partisan Promote • • 234 $20,040


88 Appendix 2: Supreme Court TV Advertisements, 2008

Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

Louisiana

Belsome Bully Candidate Belsome, RLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • • 108 $66,506

Belsome People's Court

Candidate Belsome, RLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • • • 93 $56,247

Belsome Some Ethics

Candidate Belsome, RLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Attack • • • 18 $10,605

Guidry Ethics And Values

Candidate Guidry, GBusiness, Medical, Republican

Promote • • • 164 $51,723

Guidry Message To America


Promote • • 143 $47,488

Guidry Strange Characters


Promote • • 36 $15,318

Guidry Set Record Straight


Promote • 45 $14,412

Guidry Quiet Strength


Promote • • • • 43 $11,133

Stsupctla Guidry Louisiana's Rising


Promote • • 21 $6,955

Guidry Best For Louisiana


Promote • • 19 $6,708

Hughes Where In The World

Candidate Hughes, JBusiness, Medical, Republican

Attack • 55 $46,872

Hughes Bio Candidate Hughes, JBusiness, Medical, Republican

Promote • 49 $34,123

Hughes Vote Early

Candidate Hughes, JBusiness, Medical, Republican

Promote • 29 $29,634

Kimball Grandmother

Candidate Kimball, KLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • • • 183 $75,779

Kimball Set New Standards


Promote • • 185 $71,164

Kimball Built Reputation


Promote • 159 $57,677


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

Louisiana, continued

Kuhn Most Experienced

Candidate Kuhn, JBusiness, Medical, Republican

Promote • • • 176 $63,253

Kuhn Walter Reed


Promote • • 80 $30,020

Kuhn Some Ethics


Attack • • 86 $25,825

Kuhn Fails The Test


Attack • 52 $23,607

Kuhn Mike Foster


Promote • 66 $23,320

Kuhn Most Experienced


Promote • • • 176 $63,253

Kuhn November 2


Attack • 39 $13,540

Kuhn Most Important Thing


Promote • • 19 $5,633

Kuhn Guidry's Victims


Attack • • 12 $3,857

Lacan Guidry Big Differences


LCANBusiness, Medical, Republican

Contrast • • 150 $100,740

Lacan Guidry Big Differences 3



Contrast • • 163 $86,535

Lacan Guidry Big Differences Rev



Contrast • • 15 $6,376

Lacan Kuhn Smear Squad 18 Months



Attack • 59 $30,187

AFJ Guidry Pollster


AFJLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Attack • • 69 $40,192

AFGG Candidate Endorsements


AFGG Non Partisan Promote • 39 $6,222

AFGG Alliance Recommends 7


AFGG Non Partisan Promote • 14 $3,064


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

Louisiana, continuedRDO Moreno Belsome Cannizzaro Skrmetta


RDOBusiness, Medical, Republican

Promote • 6 $3,375

RDO Endorses Candidates


RDOBusiness, Medical, Republican

Promote • 5 $2,040

State Total 2454 $1,097,519

Michigan

Taylor Lies About Chief Justice

Candidate Taylor, CBusiness, Medical, Republican

Attack • 880 $299,029

Taylor Earn Your Way


Promote • • 869 $279,067

Taylor Unqualified Hathaway


Attack • 390 $134,815

Taylor Right To Be Protected


Promote • 358 $118,136

Taylor Works Hard


Promote • 141 $38,248

Hathaway Taylor Fell Asleep

Candidate Hathaway, DMLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Contrast • • 1,066 $399,096

MDCC Taylor Bush's Agenda

Party MDSCCLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Attack • • 105 $82,556

MDSCC Taylor The Sleeping Judge


Attack • 1,450 $701,681

MDCC Taylor Wake Up Call 15


Attack • 1,020 $250,967

MDCC Taylor George Bush


Attack • 85 $57,486

MDCC Taylor Good Soldier


Attack • 136 $53,390

MDCC Taylor Good Soldier 2


Attack • 31 $18,052


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

Michigan, continued

MRP Hathaway Unqualified

Party MRPBusiness, Medical, Republican

Attack • 644 $401,259

MCC Taylor Tough On Crime


MCCBusiness, Medical, Republican

Promote • • 1,153 $750,772

MCC Hathaway Tough On Predators


MCCBusiness, Medical, Republican

Attack • 55 $54,097

State Total 8383 $3,638,651

MississippiChandler Man Of Character

Candidate Chandler, D Non Partisan Promote • 84 $34,123

Kitchens Blessed 60

Candidate Kitchens, J Non Partisan Promote • • 299 $110,368

Kitchens Out Of My Kitchen

Candidate Kitchens, J Non Partisan Promote • 287 $55,984

Kitchens Blessed Candidate Kitchens, J Non Partisan Promote • • 150 $37,040

Smith Protecting Children

Candidate Smith, J. Non Partisan Promote • 485 $77,632

Smith Measure Man's Character

Candidate Smith, J. Non Partisan Promote • 276 $56,485

Smith Rated Efficient

Candidate Smith, J Non Partisan Promote • • 145 $42,535

Smith Record Of Integrity

Candidate Smith, J Non Partisan Promote • 72 $20,370

LEAA Diaz Protect Our Families


LEAA Non Partisan Attack • 770 $337,519

LEAA Smith Protect Our Families


LEAA Non Partisan Promote • • 1,195 $322,957

Stoplaw Smith Serving Ms


SLAMBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 562 $132,259

MFEP Smith Tort Reform


MFEPBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 238 $67,797

State Total 4,563 $1,295,069


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

MontanaSTSUPCTMT Mcgrath Pam Bucy

Candidate McGrath, M Non Partisan Promote • 206 $22,916

STSUPCTMT Mcgrath Mike Menahan


STSUPCTMT Mcgrath Bill Slaughter



North CarolinaEdmunds These People 15

Candidate Edmunds, B Public funding Promote • 668 $148,586

Reynolds Understand

Candidate Reynolds, S Public funding Promote • • 220 $58,660

Reynolds Understand 15

Candidate Reynolds, S Public funding Promote • • 161 $27,028

State Total 1,049 $234,274

NevadaAllf Endorsements Candidate Allf, N Non Partisan Promote • 398 $143,830

Allf Bio Candidate Allf, N Non Partisan Promote • 218 $123,008

Allf Bio Rev Candidate Allf, N Non Partisan Promote • 175 $23,728

Chairez Bio 60 Candidate Chairez, D Non Partisan Promote • • • 184 $131,905

Gibbons Years Of Experience

Candidate Gibbons, M Non Partisan Promote • 360 $108,970

Gibbons Top Rated

Candidate Gibbons, M Non Partisan Promote • 357 $101,712

Pickering Blew The Whistle Rev

Candidate Pickering, K Non Partisan Promote • • 354 $204,447

Pickering Right Experience

Candidate Pickering, K Non Partisan Promote • 287 $107,995

Pickering Praise Candidate Pickering, K Non Partisan Promote • 208 $85,728

Pickering Only Right Experience


Pickering Only Right Experience 2


Pickering The Choice Rev

Candidate Pickering, K Non Partisan Contrast • 117 $51,748

Pickering Blew The Whistle Sp

Candidate Pickering, K Non Partisan Promote • • • 69 $28,959

Pickering The Choice

Candidate Pickering, K Non Partisan Contrast • 221 $28,034


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

Nevada, continuedPickering Right Experience Rev


Pickering Blew The Whistle Rev 2

Candidate Pickering, K Non Partisan Promote • • • 58 $8,080

Pickering Blew The Whistle

Candidate Pickering, K Non Partisan Promote • • 13 $4,699

Schumacher Proud Of Mom

Candidate Schumacher, D Non Partisan Promote • 123 $89,296

Schumacher I'm Voting Not A Judge

Candidate Schumacher, D Non Partisan Contrast • 57 $31,109

Schumacher I'm Voting

Candidate Schumacher, D Non Partisan Promote • 5 $1,069

State Total 3,906 $1,450,506

Ohio

O'Connor Voice Plain Dealer 15

Candidate O'Connor, MBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • • 290 $81,893

O'Connor Voice Dispatch 15


Promote • • 381 $76,185

O'Connor Voice Police Fire 15


Promote • • 407 $63,278

Russo Facts Candidate Russo, JLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Contrast • 40 $28,054

Stratton Big Heart

Candidate Stratton, EBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 564 $117,121

Stratton Rated Excellent 15


Promote • 498 $109,446

Stratton Velvet Hammer 10


Promote • 490 $98,231

PFOF Stratton Eyes Of A Child


PFOFBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 1,237 $477,175

PFOF O'Connor Peaceful Night Rev



Promote • • 424 $160,139

PFOF O’Connor Peaceful Night



Promote • • 99 $47,309

State Total 4,430 $1,258,831


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

Texas

Jefferson Only In America

Candidate Jefferson, WBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 569 $400,980

Jefferson Rose To Chief Justice

Candidate Jefferson, WBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 4 $3,504

Wainwright Activist Judges

Candidate Wainwright, DBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • • 299 $292,123

Yanez Ideal World Candidate Yanez, LLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • • 65 $31,714

Jordan Yanez Houston

Party TDPLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Contrast • • 2,075 $904,978

Jefferson Wainwright Johnson

Party HCRPBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 705 $463,368

Rising Gas Prices Party EPCDPLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Contrast • 33 $8,657

State Total 3,750 $2,105,324

West Virginia

STSUPCTWV Bastress Bio

Candidate Bastress, BLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • 148 $31,238

STSUPCTWV Bastress Warped Justice

Candidate Bastress, BLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Contrast • • 91 $17,795

STSUPCTWV Ketchum Bio

Candidate Ketchum, MLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • 389 $71,269

STSUPCTWV Ketchum Bio 60


Promote • • 123 $54,070

STSUPCTWV Ketchum Bio Rev 60


Promote • • 80 $17,430

STSUPCTWV Ketchum Ketchup Guy


Promote • 565 $120,501

STSUPCTWV Ketchum Ketchup Guy Rev


Promote • 1,022 $166,238

STSUPCTWV Ketchum Mumbo Jumbo


Promote • 228 $49,255


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

West Virginia, continuedSTSUPCTWV Ketchum Take A Hike


Attack • 16 $2,566

STSUPCTWV Maynard I Like Spike

Candidate Maynard, SLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • • 168 $27,617

STSUPCTWV Maynard Menace


Attack • 66 $12,948

STSUPCTWV Maynard Newspapers Endorse


Promote • 139 $25,475

STSUPCTWV Maynard Son Of West Virginia


Promote • 192 $45,215

STSUPCTWV Walker Always

Candidate Walker, BBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • • 160 $27,463

STSUPCTWV Walker Believe

Candidate Walker, BBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • • • 270 $52,407

STSUPCTWV Workman Integrity

Candidate Workman, MLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • 209 $34,990

STSUPCTWV Workman Working People


Promote • 203 $25,479

STSUPCTWV Workman Working People Rev


Promote • 50 $7,039

STSUPCTWV WVBCT Maynard Denouncement


WVBCTLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Attack • • 87 $46,638

STSUPCTWV WVCOC Maynard For The Record


WVCOCBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 386 $109,918

STSUPCTWV WVCOC Maynard For The Record Rev



Promote • 26 $10,388

STSUPCTWV WVCOC Maynard True Friend



Promote • 122 $19,626


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

West Virginia, continuedSTSUPCTWV Wvcoc Mcgraw Enough



Attack • • 732 $165,450

STSUPCTWV Wvcoc Walker Treated Fairly



Promote • 579 $127,205

State Total 6,051 1,268,220

WisconsinButler Battleground

Candidate FoJLB Non Partisan Promote • • 940 $181,952

Butler Kohl For Butler

Candidate FOJLB Non Partisan Promote • • 474 $111,239

Butler It's An Honor

Candidate FOJLB Non Partisan Promote • • • 114 $17,269

Butler Shame Candidate FOJLB Non Partisan Contrast • • 29 $7,221

Gableman Slimy Attacks

Candidate Gableman, M Non Partisan Promote • 241 $48,823

Gableman Shadowy Special Interests

Candidate Gableman, M Non Partisan Contrast • 106 $45,013

CFAF Butler Murdered Wife


CFAFBusiness, medical, Republican

Attack • 687 $222,374

CFAF Butler Ralph Armstrong 2



Attack • 301 $108,652

CFAF Butler Ralph Armstrong



Attack • 186 $52,433

CFAF Butler Ralph Armstrong 3



Attack • 39 $14,619

CFG Criminals Threaten


CFGBusiness, medical, Republican

Promote • 1,191 $465,431

GWC Butler Who Can


GWCLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Promote • • 960 $277,374

GWC Remember Mike Gableman



Attack • • 855 $272,487

GWC Meet Mike Gableman



Attack • • 780 $267,927

GWC Gableman Too Far



Attack • • 835 $251,373


Cre

ativ

e N

ame

Spon

sor

Who

Inte

rest

Tone

Trad

itio

nal

Civ

il Ju

stic

e

Cri

min

al J

ustic

e

Spec

ial I

nter

est

Cri

ticis

m f

or D

ecis

ions

Fam

ily V

alue

s

Con

serv

ativ

e Va

lues

Civ

il R

ight

s

Rol

e of

Jud

ges

Att

ack

Not

App

licab

le

Ethi

cs

Spot

Cou

nt

Esti

mat

ed C

ost

Wisconsin, continued

GWC Better Choice



Contrast • • 193 $96,034

GWC It's Mike Gableman



Attack • 6 $3,773

WEAC Gableman Imagine


WEACLabor, trial lawyer, Democrat

Attack • 187 $48,321

WMC Loophole Louie


WMC Business, medical, Republican

Attack • • 1,718 $524,212

WMC Butler Common Sense



Attack • 1,350 $444,250

WMC Gableman Thank Judges 2



Promote • 751 $323,544

WMC Gableman Thank Judges



Promote • 17 $4,836

State Total 11,960 $3,789,157

AbbreviationsAFGG Alliance for Good Government AFJ Alliance for JusticeCFAF Coalition for America’s FamiliesCFG Club for GrowthCFIF Center for Individual FreedomEPCDP El Paso County Democratic Party GWC Greater Wisconsin CommitteeHCRP Harris County Republican PartyLCAN Louisiana Conservative Action NetworkLEAA Law Enforcement Alliance of AmericaMCC Michigan Chamber of CommerceMDSCC Michigan Democratic State Central CommitteeMFEP Mississippians for Economic ProgressMRP Michigan Republican PartyPFOF Partnership for Ohio’s FutureRDO Regular Democratic OrganizationSLAM Stop Lawsuit Abuse in Mississippi TDP Texas Democratic PartyWEAC Wisconsin Education Association Council WMC Wisconsin Manufacturers & CommerceWVBCT West Virginia Building & Construction Trades PACWVCOC West Virginia Chamber of Commerce

Judicial Elections: A National Overview22 states hold at least some competitive elections for state Supreme Court justices. ➜

16 states hold only one-candidate retention elections for Supreme Court justices. ➜

Thus, Supreme Court justices face some form of election in 38 states. ➜

When local general jurisdiction trial courts are considered, appellate and trial judges face ➜

some form of election in 39 states.

Judicial Appointments: A National Overview29 states initially appoint Supreme Court justices. ➜ *

24 states use a system known as merit selection. Governors select justices from slates of nomi- ➜

nees submitted to them by nonpartisan commissions.

5 states use other appointment systems, such as gubernatorial or legislative appointments, ➜

without any use of nonpartisan nominating commissions.

Public Financing States

As of June 2010, four states with competitive elections provide public financing for appellate candi-dates: North Carolina (enacted in 2002); New Mexico (enacted in 2007); and Wisconsin (enacted in 2009). In 2010, West Virginia enacted a pilot public financing program for the 2012 state Supreme Court of Appeals elections.

To learn more about which states use each system, visit the American Judicature Society’s “Judicial Selection in the States” website, at www.ajs.org, or visit the “State Issues” section at www.justiceatstake.org.

* In a unique hybrid system, New Mexico Supreme Court justices are appointed, but must face one partisan election to stay in office. Thus, New Mexico is listed in both the election and appointment categories.


APPENDIx 3

Facts About State Court Election and Appointment Systems

James J. Sample is an Associate Professor at Hofstra University School of Law. From 2005-2009, Professor Sample served as Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, where he litigated and wrote on issues involving campaign finance, voting rights, and judicial independence. Previously, he worked on Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer’s 2004 campaign and clerked for the Honorable Judge Sidney R. Thomas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Professor Sample is widely quoted by the national press on courts issues, and his articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Slate, Politico, and the HuffingtonPost. Professor Sample’s recent scholarship includes “Caperton: Correct Today; Compelling Tomorrow” (Syracuse Law Review 2010), and “Court Reform Enters the Post-Caperton Era” (Drake Law Review 2010). While at the Brennan Center, he served as counsel on certiorari and merits stages briefs in support of the Petitioners in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Professor Sample received his JD from Columbia Law School, where he was a Harlan Fiske

Stone and James Kent Scholar and a Notes Editor on the Columbia Law Review. Before law school he was a three-time Emmy Award winner for his work with NBC Sports. He can be reached at [email protected].

Adam Skaggs is Counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice’s Democracy Program, where he works on a range of judicial independence, voting rights, and election administration issues. Before joining the Brennan Center, he was a litigation associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. In 2003, Mr. Skaggs graduated summa cum laude with a J.D. from Brooklyn Law School, and was a member of the Brooklyn Law Review. He subsequently clerked for Judge Stanley

Marcus of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Edward Korman, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Mr. Skaggs received an M.S. in Urban Affairs from Hunter College of the City University of New York, and holds a B.A., awarded with distinction, from Swarthmore College.

Jonathan Blitzer is a former Research Associate with the Fair Courts program at the Brennan Center. He graduated from Columbia University, with a degree in English and Philosophy, in 2007.

100 Appendix 4: About the Authors

APPENDIx 4

About the Authors


Linda Casey is lead researcher at the nonpartisan, nonprofit National Institute on Money in State Politics. In addition to com-prehensive research duties, she has focused on judicial elections since 2001. “High Court Contests: Competition, Controversy and Cash in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin,” “Diversity in State Judicial Campaigns, 2007-¬2008,” “Judicial Diversity and Money in Politics: AL, GA, IL, NM, NC, OH, PA, WA, WI.” Ms. Casey earned degrees in political science and sociology from Carroll College, in Helena, Montana. Before joining the National Institute in 1996, she worked for several nonprofit organizations and served as a financial officer for a number of statewide and legislative political campaigns in Montana.

Charles W. Hall is Director of Communications for the Justice at Stake Campaign. A career journalist, he worked for 20 years as a reporter and editor for the Washington Post, including extensive stints covering federal and local courts. Before joining Justice at Stake in 2008, Mr. Hall was manager of presidential communica-tions for the American Bar Association. He also is active in civic affairs in Northern Virginia, and has had numerous commentaries published on regional land use policies. Mr. Hall can be reached at [email protected].

Theodore B. Olson. Source: Courtesy of Theodore B. Olson

Page 8: Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson. Source: Courtesy of the Texas Supreme Court

Page 15: J. Mark White. Source: Courtesy of J. Mark White

Page 22: Gov. Edward Rendell. Source: Courtesy of Pennsylvania governor’s office

Page 27: Justice Paul Pfeifer. Source: Courtesy of the Ohio Supreme Court

Page 33: Justice Louis Butler. Source: Webcast of O’Connor Project conference at Georgeton University Law School, http://www.law.georgetown.edu/webcast/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=625.

Page 38: Karl Rove. Source: Huffington Post

Page 40: Bernard Marcus. Source: www.emery.edu

Page 41: Thomas Donohue. Source: online.wsj.com

Page 41: Maurice Greenberg. Source: Politicolnews.com

Page 41: Roy Barnes. Source: Atlanta Business Chronicle

Page 43: John Engler. Source: Politico.com

Page 45: Mike McCabe. Source: Courtesy of Mike McCabe

Page 45: Fred Baron. Source: Pegasusnews.com

Page 45: Bob Perry. Source: StarTribune.com

Page 47: Jere Beasley and Greg Allen. Source: Beasley Allen web site

Page 47: Judge Deborah Bell Paseur. Source: League of Women Voters of Alabama

Page 48: Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. Source: Courtesy of Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 49: Chief Justice Carol Hunstein. Source: Fresh Loaf politics blog

Page 49: Chief Justice Thomas Moyer. Source: Courtesy of Ohio Supreme Court

Page 52: Professor Amanda Frost. Source: Courtesy of Amanda Frost

Page 52: Former Chief Justice Thomas R Phillips. Source: Courtesy of Justice Phillips

Page 52: Don Blankenship and former West Virginia Chief Justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard: Source: Courtesy of Hugh Caperton

Page 53: Hugh Caperton. Source: Courtesy of Hugh Caperton

Page 53: Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly. Source: Courtesy of Michigan Supreme Court

102 Photo Sources

Photo Sources


Page 53: John Grisham. Source: Legal Broadcast Network news blog

Page 55: West Virginia Justice Brent D. Benjamin. Source: http://lawyersusadcdicta.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/benjamin.jpg

Page 56: Blankenship and Maynard. Source: Courtesy of High Caperton

Page 56: Andrew Frey. Source: RepublicanGazette.com

Page 56: Theodore B. Olson. Source: Courtesy of Theodore B. Olson

Page 57: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Source: Dane Penland, Smithsonian Institution, courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Page 60: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Source: pbs.org

Page 61: Justice Antonin Scalia. Source: law.cornell.edu.

Page 62: Justice John Paul Stevens. Source: DigitalJournal.com

Page 64: Professor Kathleen Sullivan. Source: Courtesy of Kathleen Sullivan

Page 66: Professor Richard Hasen. Source: Courtesy of Richard Hasen

Page 68: Judge Wanda Bryant. Source: North Carolina court system.

Page 73: Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, from youtube clip of TV ad.

AAbrahamson, Shirley (Wisconsin chief justice)

5, 22AIG Insurance 3, 39, 41Alabama 2–3, 6–7, 8–13, 15–17, 18, 19–21, 26–27,

29, 34–35, 38–39, 41, 42–44, 46, 50, 74Alabama Automobile Dealers Association 15Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee 13,

15, 21, 50–51 Alabama Democratic Party, 10–11, 13, 15, 18, 21,

39, 46–47, 50–51 Alabama Forestry Association 15Alaska 6–7, 70Alexander, Gerry (Washington justice) 39Alito, Samuel (U.S. Supreme Court justice) 76American Association of Justice 41American Bar Association 44, 58, 61, 70, 75American Council of Life Insurers 41American Insurance Association 49American Judicature Society 6, 75American Justice Partnership 3, 13, 21, 28,

41–43, 49–51, 73–75American Taxpayers Alliance 3, 13, 28, 43, 50–51 American Tort Reform Association 3, 16, 41,

43–44, 50–51 Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse 3, 38–39,

42–44, 50–51 American Trial Lawyers Association 41And For the Sake of the Kids 50–51, 56Arkansas 6–7, 20, 27Ashcroft, John (former U.S. attorney general)

73, 75 Avery v. State Farm 57

BBarnes, Roy (Georgia governor) 41, 45Baron, Fred 44–45, 48, 50–51 Bauer v. Shepard 61Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles

3, 46–47 Benjamin, Brent D. (West Virginia justice) 12,

55–60Blagojevich, Rod (Illinois governor) 67Blankenship, Don 9–13, 19, 21, 52, 55–56, 60, 62 Bolin, Michael 15Bopp, James Jr. 53, 62 Boston Globe 72Bradley, Ann Walsh (Wisconsin justice) 48Brennan Center for Justice 59–60, 70Brown, Kirk 42Bryant, Wanda (North Carolina appellate

judge) 68, 69Buckley v. Valeo 64Bush, George W. (U.S. president) 28, 35, 56 Business & Industry Political Education

Committee 21, 42–43 Business Council of Alabama, 3, 13, 15, 20–21,

38, 41, 43, 50–51Butler, Louis (Wisconsin justice) 2, 19, 32–33,

35–36, 42, 48

CCalifornia 6–7, 70–71, 74Campaign Legal Center 59 Caperton, Hugh 12, 53, 56 Caperton v. Massey 3–4, 9, 12, 21, 24, 53, 55–61,

63–65, 67, 70, 72, 74

104 Index

Index


Center for Individual Freedom 13, 16–18, 28–29, 35, 41, 43–44, 50–51

Center for Political Accountability 59Chamber of Commerce, Illinois 16, 40, 43Chamber of Commerce, Michigan 13, 18, 28,

30, 35, 43, 48 Chamber of Commerce, Ohio 43 Chamber of Commerce, U.S. 3–4, 10–11, 13–14,

16, 18, 21, 28, 39–41, 43, 45, 48, 50–51, 74–75Chamber of Commerce, West Virginia 21, 43 Chrysler 39, 41, 49 Citizens for an Independent Court 28Citizens for a Strong Ohio 28, 41Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

2–3, 9, 45, 53, 62–65, 70, 76Clark, Marcus (Louisiana justice) 22Club for Growth 19, 48, 50–51Coalition for America’s Families 19, 32, 35, 48Cobb, Sue Bell (Alabama chief justice) 15, 39 Colorado 71Coca-Cola Bottlers 49 Committee for Economic Development 58, 68Conference of Chief Justices 9, 59–60 Crawford, John D. 46–47CRC Communications 39, 45, 73

DDelaware 74Democratic Judicial Campaign Committee 41,

44–45, 48, 50–51 Dial, Eric 49Diaz, Oliver Jr. (Mississippi justice) 21, 34, 44 Donohue, Thomas 40–41Doyle, Jim (Wisconsin governor) 42, 69Duke v. Leake 63, 65

EEdwards, John (N.C. senator) 45Engler, John 41–43Enron Corp. 45Exxon Corp. 46

FFactcheck.org (Annenberg Public Policy

Center) 30, 32Faircloth, Jimmy (Louisiana candidate) 22Federalist Society 39, 45, 73–75Florida 6–7 Forbes magazine 41, 43 Franklin PAC 15Frey, Andrew 56Frost, Amanda 52Frost, Martin (Texas congressman) 45Fulbright & Jaworski 45

GGableman, Michael (Wisconsin justice) 2, 19,

32–33, 35–36, 48 Garman (Illinois justice) 43Georgia 2, 6–7, 15, 20, 27, 39, 42–43 45, 49, 61 Georgia Hospital Association 49Gibbons, Mark (Nevada justice) 21Greater Wisconsin Committee 13, 16, 18, 22,

28–29, 35, 42, 48, 50–51 Greenberg, Maurice “Hank” 41Grisham, John 32–33, 53, 56 Groen, John (Washington candidate) 39, 42

HHarris Interactive 69Harwood, Bernard (Alabama justice) 15 Hathaway, Diane (Michigan justice) 2, 19,

29–30, 35, 42, 48 Hawaii 70, 71Haynes & Boone 45Hillco Partners 45Hirshon, Robert 61Hofstra University School of Law 76Home Depot 3, 39–41 Humber, W. Thomas 44Hunstein, Carol (Georgia chief justice) 42, 49

106 Index

IIdaho 6–7, 20, 27, 29, 31Illinois 6–7, 9–13, 16, 20, 27–28, 38, 43–44,

50–51, 57, 67Illinois Campaign for Political Reform 16Illinois Chamber of Commerce 16, 40, 43Illinois Civil Justice League 43, 50–51 Illinois Democratic Party, 3, 10–11, 13, 16, 28,

50–51 Illinois Republican Party, 10–11, 13, 28 IMPAC (Improve Mississippi Political Action

Committee) 3, 21, 50–51 Iowa 74Indiana 61, 74Institute for Legal Reform 43, 74–75Institute for the Advancement of the American

Legal System 70Intel Corp. 58

JJackson (Miss.) Clarion–Ledger 72J.A.I.L. 4 Judges 71Jefferson, Wallace (Texas chief justice) 8, 12Jindal, Bobby (Louisiana governor) 22Justice at Stake Campaign 59, 61–62, 64,

67–71, 74, 76

KKansas 4, 71, 73–75Kansas Judicial Review 50–51, 73Karmeier, Lloyd (Illinois justice) 12, 16, 57 Kelly, Marilyn (Michigan chief justice) 53Kennedy, Anthony M. (U.S. Supreme Court

justice) 12, 60, 65Kentucky 6–7, 20, 27, 29 Kitchens, Jim (Mississippi justice) 21, 42 Koschnick, Randy (Wisconsin candidate) 22

LLake, Celinda 45Lally-Green, Maureen (Pennsylvania candidate)

21, 44, Lautenschlager, Peg (Wisconsin attorney

general) 45

Law Enforcement Alliance of America 13, 21, 34, 41, 44, 50–51

Lawsuit Reform PAC 15League of Women Voters 70Limit the Judges 50–51Lockheed Martin Corp. 58 Los Angeles Times 68, 72 Louisiana 2, 6–7, 16–17, 20–22, 27, 29, 31, 34,

38, 50, 74

MMaag, Gordon (Illinois candidate) 12, 16, 57 Marcus, Bernard 40–41 Maryland 71Mauro, Tony 42Maynard, Elliott “Spike” (W. Va. chief justice)

21, 56 McCabe, Mike 45, 48 McCaffery, Seamus (Pennsylvania justice) 22 McCain-Feingold (BCRA) law 69 McGraw, Warren (West Virginia justice) 28,

55–56 McRae, Chuck (Mississippi justice) 21Melvin, Joan Orie (Pennsylvania justice) 12, 16,

22Memphis Commercial Appeal 74MGM Mirage casino 21Michigan 2, 4, 6–7, 9–14, 16–20, 27–31, 34–35,

38–39, 41–43, 45, 48, 50, 53, 61, 67, 70Michigan Democratic Party 18, 28–30, 35, 48,

50–51 Michigan Republican Party 28, 30, 35, 48 Midwest Democracy Network 62Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 72 Minnesota 6–7, 20, 24, 68, 71, 75Mississippi 6–7, 9, 11–12, 14, 16–17, 20–21,

26–27, 29, 31–32, 34, 38, 42–44, 50, 69, 72, 74Mississippi Association for Justice 42Mississippians for Economic Progress 21, 43 Missouri 4, 45, 68, 70, 73–75Missouri State Bar 73Montana 6–7, 20, 27, 29, 31, 71Moyer, Thomas (Ohio chief justice) 49, 71 Moyers, Bill 52


NNabers, Drayton 15National Association of Manufacturers 3, 13,

18, 21, 28, 38–39, 41–43, 48–51, 73National Institute on Money in State Politics

11, 69National Rifle Association 21, 41, 44, 50–51 National Smokers Alliance 21, 44 Nebraska 74Nevada 4, 6–7, 9, 10–12, 16–17, 20–21, 27, 29,

31, 34, 68, 71–72, 75New Mexico 4, 6–7, 20, 27, 69New York Times 27, 52, 58, 62, 72, 76 North Carolina 3–4, 6–7, 20, 27, 29, 62–63 65,

68–70North Dakota 6–8, 74

OO’Connor, Sandra Day (U.S. Supreme Court

justice) 4, 32, 57, 73, 76 Ohio 6–7, 9–12, 17–20, 26–29, 31, 38, 41, 43,

49–50, 7–72Olson, Theodore B. (Former U.S. solicitor

general) 4, 56, 60 Oregon 6–7, 20, 27, 42, 70, 71

PPanella, Jack (Pennsylvania candidate) 16, 22Partnership for Ohio’s Future 18, 28, 43Paseur, Deborah Bell (Alabama candidate) 3, 15,

21, 29, 34–35, 39, 46–47 Pennsylvania 2, 6–8, 9–13, 16–18, 20–22, 25,

27–28, 30–31, 36, 39, 44, 68Pennsylvania Republican Party 12–13, 16, 18, 22,

28, 50–51 Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts 68Pepsico 58Pero, Dan 42Perry, Bob 39, 45Pfeifer, Paul (Ohio justice) 12, 27 Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association 3, 13, 16,

18, 22, 50–51 Philip Morris 44Phillips, Thomas (former Texas chief justice)

52, 60

Pickering, Kris (Nevada justice) 21Pierce, Randy “Bubba” (Mississippi justice) 34Pro Business PAC 15Public Citizen 44

QQuie, Al (former Minnesota governor) 68

RReform Institute 59Rendell, Edward (Pennyslvania governor) 22Republican Party of Minnesota v. White 3, 61 Resnick, Alice (Ohio justice) 28Rich, Howard 3, 50–51Roberts, Jack (Oregon candidate) 42Roberts, John G. Jr. (U.S. chief justice) 60Rove, Karl 3, 38

SSafety and Prosperity Coalition 28, 42–43,

49–51, Samuels, Dorothy 76Sample, James 76Scalia, Antonin (U.S. Supreme Court justice)

61Scruggs, Richard 42 See, Harold F. Jr. 15 Senn, Deborah (Washington insurance

commissioner) 45Shaw, Greg (Alabama justice) 21, 29, 34–35, 39,

44, 46Siefert v. Alexander 61Smith, Jim (Mississippi justice) 21, 42–43 South Dakota 6–7, 71Southeastern Legal Foundation 49 State Farm Insurance 57 Stevens, John Paul (U.S. Supreme Court

justice) 62, 64, 76 St. Louis Post-Dispatch 57, 75Stop Lawsuit Abuse of Alabama 43Sullivan, Kathleen 64Swift Boat veterans 39, 45, 73

108 Index

TTaylor, Cliff (Michigan chief justice) 17, 19, 28,

30, 35, 42, 48 Teague, John 46–47 Tennessee 45, 73–74Texans for Lawsuit Reform 45Texans for Public Justice 45Texas 2–3, 6–8, 9–12, 16–21, 27–29, 31, 34,

38–39, 42–46, 50, 52, 60Texas Civil Justice League 43Texas Democratic Party 18, 39, 45, 50–51 Texas Democratic Trust 45 Toobin, Jeffrey 70Transparency International USA 58

UUSA Today 42, 67, 72 U.S. Chamber of Commerce see, Chamber of

Commerce, U.S.U.S. Supreme Court 3, 9, 12, 24, 45, 55–65, 72,

74, 76

VVinson & Elkins 45

WWall Street Journal 73–75Wal-Mart 41, 58 Washington 6–7, 20, 24, 27, 38–39, 42, 44–45,

70Washington Post 72 Weaver v. Bonner 61West Virginia 2, 4, 6–7, 9–12, 14, 16–17, 19–21,

27–29, 38, 43–44, 50, 52, 55–56, 58–59, 62, 67, 69–72, 74

White, J. Mark 15Wiggins, Mike (Georgia candidate) 49Wisconsin 2, 4–7, 9–13, 15–22, 26–33, 35–38,

42–43, 45, 48, 50, 61, 65, 67, 68, 69Wisconsin Democracy Campaign 45, 48 Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce 3, 13,

16, 18–19, 28, 32, 42–43, 48, 50–51, 65 Wisconsin Realtors Association 65

Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission 64

ZZicklin Center for Business Ethics Research

(Wharton School) 59Zogby International 67

About the Brennan Center For Justice

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a nonpartisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice. The Center’s work includes voting rights, campaign finance reform, racial justice in criminal law and presidential power in the fight against terrorism. Part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group,

the Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communications to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector.

For more information, visit www.brennancenter.org.

About the National Institute on Money in State Politics

The National Institute on Money in State Politics collects, publishes, and analyzes data on campaign money in state elections. The database dates back to the 1990 election cycle for some states and is comprehensive for all 50 states since the 1999–2000 election cycle. The Institute has compiled a 50-state summary of

state supreme court contribution data from 1989 through the present, as well as complete, detailed databases of campaign contributions for all state high-court judicial races beginning with the 2000 elections.

For more information, visit www.followthemoney.org.

About the Justice at Stake Campaign

The Justice at Stake Campaign is a nonpartisan national partnership working to keep our courts fair, impartial and free from special-interest and partisan agendas. In states across America, Campaign partners work to protect our courts through public education, grass-roots organizing and reform. The

Campaign provides strategic coordination and brings organizational, communications and research resources to the work of its partners and allies at the national, state and local levels.

For more information, visit www.justiceatstake.org.

This report was prepared by the Justice at Stake Campaign and two of its partners, the Brennan Center for Justice and

the National Institute on Money in State Politics. It represents their research and viewpoints, and does not necessarily

reflect those of other Justice at Stake Campaign partners, funders or board members. Publication of this report was

supported by grants from Carnegie Corporation of New York, Democracy Alliance Partners, the Joyce Foundation, the

Moriah Fund, the Open Society Institute, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Wallace Global Fund.


DECADE OFCHANGE

THE

NEW POLITICS OFJUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2000-2009

717 D Street, NW, Suite 203 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone (202) 588-9700 • Fax (202) 588-9485 Visit us at www.justiceatstake.org

by

James SampleHofstra University School of Law

Adam Skaggs and Jonathan BlitzerBrennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Linda CaseyNational Institute on Money in State Politics

Charles Hall, EditorJustice at Stake Campaign


With a foreword from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

'.,.-.,,,; -.'Fbi-...,.. -~.

"fP/J'ffJIe ••..- ~~~~~.... ' .

• ••.....••• ••..q5l:JQg....-

.....I1~~S•...·nNry;..,

.::.••••••__r • .r..

e •• T:..r;;lN~.:.e· •.::.• •••••••....••_.: ..••••••• ••••.........

-- ..

.r.. · 23. Michigan 2008: Challenger Assailed as Soft on Terrorism Page 35 24. TV Spending, 2007...

Documents

Transcript of .r.. · 23. Michigan 2008: Challenger Assailed as Soft on Terrorism Page 35 24. TV Spending, 2007...